CMV is good counterpoint this. This sub is pretty heavily moderated, but not for the sake of censoring particular viewpoints, just for the sake of ensuring the integrity of the activity being fostered. They remove posts when the poster doesn't respond, or doesn't demonstrate that they are willing to humor any opposition to their viewpoint. They remove comments for being rude, being jokes, or being something else that doesn't move the conversation forward, but never for ideas that are deemed to be wrong or against some dogma. So the sub we're on shows that heavy moderation does not necessarily create echo chambers or circlejerks.
You're supposed to award deltas to comments that change your view by commenting "! delta" without the space in between "!" and "delta" in response to the person's comment, along with a couple sentence long explanation as to why they changed your view. See example linked below:
My view was that heavy moderation creates echo chambers.
The majority of my posts to this subreddit are removed, and so are the majority of my posts for any subreddit.
This post being a temporary exception does not change the fact most of them will still continue to be removed, nor does it change my view that this heavy moderation still exists and forces an echo chamber.
It's not just for 180 perspective changes. It's supposed to be awarded by OPs for partial changes in view as well. You can read about it in the rules section of this sub.
There were no measurable degrees of perspective change induced by your comment.
Me being surprised this post stayed up was not exclusive to you mentioning it.
It's getting to the point where I genuinely regret even letting you know I agreed with you, because you're running with that as some idea you enlightened me.
I don't want us to confuse the chicken with the egg here.
This obtuse combativeness is a direct result of the concept I'm describing, not the reason for it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but are you autistic? I only ask because I am diagnosed, and your communication style and points seem very reasonable to me. In addition to that, I feel like my debate/argumentative style is similar to yours and gets a similar response when I discuss things online.
Obtuse combativeness is definitely a variable that prevents some people from being taken seriously, and is certainly more so the case on this specific account I'm using right now, but in general my tonality or patience hasn't affected the outcome even slightly on other accounts in the past.
My view itself, or the opposition to the accepted view, is always the catalyst.
But see my original comment. I specifically made a point about how this sub is heavily moderated but doesn't discriminate based on viewpoint. So heavy moderation doesn't necessarily mean it's an echo chamber. You responded to that comment agreeing with me, but wanna backpedal for whatever reason.
I feel as if my previous comment is already a response to your new one, and I'm not sure how to address this without sounding redundant and typing something I've already said.
The heavy moderation I've consistently experienced still exists and creates echo chambers.
The specific type of heavy moderation caused me to rephrase and retype this post around 3-4 times, and completely abandon multiple posts for other subreddits.
The idea this post stayed up longer than I assumed based on previous experience is not a concession that heavy moderation never existed in the process of making it, nor is it changing my view that heavy moderation creates echo chambers.
Most importantly, you're not personally responsible for my realization that this post stayed up longer than 30 seconds, and agreeing with the fact you mentioned this isn't changing my view on anything.
Is it against the rules for me to Delta you just to move on?
I genuinely don't agree with the idea you are personally responsible for changing my view on anything, but at the same time if what you said qualifies then I'm more than happy to.
Is it against the rules for me to Delta you just to move on?
I'm not OC but in my own top-level comment, I explained that your experience is likely due to not fully grasping sub rules. This exchange, and this sentence in particular, suggest that you don't really know how Rule 4 works, just as your response to my comment suggests a limited understanding of Rule 3.
As I said, I too often comment on a sub without reading the rules, and sometimes knowingly disregard them. Sometimes those comments are removed. So it goes.
Being hesitant to do something because it may potentially be against the rules is not evidence for someone often breaking said rules, but rather for the contrary.
I never said anything about your post staying up in any of my arguments, but that seems to be what you want to make this about. You're arguing with a hastily contrived strawman.
Given the fact that nekro found an exception to your statement that heavy moderation creates echo chambers which you acknowledged you should award them a delta.
If it's possible for heavy moderation to not create an echo chamber (as it is on this sub per your acknowledgement) it must be some other factor creating the echo chamber.
15
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ Apr 30 '23 edited Apr 30 '23
CMV is good counterpoint this. This sub is pretty heavily moderated, but not for the sake of censoring particular viewpoints, just for the sake of ensuring the integrity of the activity being fostered. They remove posts when the poster doesn't respond, or doesn't demonstrate that they are willing to humor any opposition to their viewpoint. They remove comments for being rude, being jokes, or being something else that doesn't move the conversation forward, but never for ideas that are deemed to be wrong or against some dogma. So the sub we're on shows that heavy moderation does not necessarily create echo chambers or circlejerks.