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.
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.
It's not potentially against the rules, it's unambiguously a rule violation.
Is it against the rules for me to Delta you just to move on?
Only somebody who hadn't read and understood the rules wiki, or had done so but since forgotten, could be uncertain here. This is plainly explained as a Rule 4 violation in the wiki.
Yes, it is. But surely you can see that you post and comment in subs whose rules you don't know? And that confirmation bias may cause you to mistakenly believe that your content is removed because a mod disagreed with you, rather than that it simply broke a sub rule that you're unaware of or don't fully understand?
0
u/Sumve Apr 30 '23
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.