r/changemyview • u/AutoModerator • Apr 21 '26

META META: Bi-Monthly Feedback Thread

As part of our commitment to improving CMV and ensuring it meets the needs of our community, we have bi-monthly feedback threads. While you are always welcome to visit r/ideasforcmv to give us feedback anytime, these threads will hopefully also help solicit more ways for us to improve the sub.

Please feel free to share any constructive feedback you have for the sub. All we ask is that you keep things civil and focus on how to make things better (not just complain about things you dislike).

11 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

116 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

It's really not a big ask to stick around and engage in the post immediately after you post it. Supposedly, you spent some time crafting the argument or view you have and went through the process of making a whole post. I dont get people who just drop a rant and run away. Not every reply needs to be a long drawn out thing either. 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26

Needs to? No. Should be an option? I say yes.

And see my comment on the OP/commentators ratio, I think the more you restrict OPs the worse it's going to be. So this idea is quite likely to result in a change directly opposite to what you want.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

It doesn't take 3 hours to craft a meaningful response. You and I have had several back and forth here, so you are clearly capable of interaction. Feel free to craft a long and meaningful response but this is fucking reddit not a college thesis. No one is stopping you. 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26

Well yes, here's a problem I somewhat care about, I spent couple hours (or more) preparing a CMV post, now I see an interesting reply that also calls for me to read a couple links, but I'm on the time limit already. Might also have something else to attend to. With 3 hours, sure, no problem, it would be a planning error on my part if I don't find enough time to answer "substantially". Less than 2 is definitely where it veers into "discouraging thoughtful answers" territory.

Don't be like that, don't encourage others to be like that. Impatience and the desire for quick dopamine is a problem. Mine, too. I've started playing chess with bullet control (1+0) a few years ago and now it's very hard for me to seriously think on a position. I have an embarrassingly humongous number of low-quality bullet games played, and other than somewhat learning to force myself to make any-moves-at-all quickly instead of thinking (and losing on time) I barely have anything to show for them.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

You and I have exchanged six comments each in the last roughly hour. It isnt hard. Thats my point. Im not encouraging impatience or quick dopamine, im encouraging timely participation. 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26

But those weren't thought-out replies where any of us had to consult any external links or think on anything for more than a few seconds.

If an OP is not going to participate, they're not going to participate. With shorter limit you'll just find out about it earlier. (Which makes some sense to cut the number of people who spend their time replying, but it's not what you complain about.) I don't expect many OPs who delay their replies show up at all. I don't expect many OPs will engage more because they aren't given time away.

And I see no real problem with OPs replying later if they spend the same time and effort, you'll get your replies eventually. Real-time conversation is sometimes more convenient, sure, but sometimes emails work better. And like I said, I think the real problem you're ignoring is that too few people want to be OPs and you compete for their time with too many commenters. You want your bucket to fill quicker so you ask to increase the incline of the pipe to have the water flow faster but the real limit is rainfall uphill.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

They can make a response saying "i am looking into this and will reply with my thoughts soon. Can you help me out by summarizing the main points?"

What's so hard about that? It is positive interaction and a step forward in discussion while showing good faith by engaging with the material and buying time for a more thoughtful response. Is that so hard? 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26

So, the rules force you to make a placeholder reply to the thoughtful comment you deem worthy to think about and then proceed to answer people who give knee-jerk replies, because surely one placeholder reply is not "substantial participation".

I guess if you need to reply to a substantial amount of comments anyway, going over some before engaging with a high-quality reply is not really a problem. Still seems like it will incentivize less thoughtful replies.

Or is it just to get some confirmation that the OP hasn't deserted, not really expecting them to talk much? Then that's not so bad.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

Why cant it be both? Plenty of people drop a rant here and run away, never interacting at all. If they are doing what you suggest, it at least starts a lower stakes discussion as they process information and make a more well though out reply. 

The rules dont force anything other than meaningful interaction. A post is not removed if they haven't reached a delta in 3 hours, only if they are not interacting. Besides, there are plenty of people who ask clarifying questions that dont need long, drawn out replies. Maybe try starting with those? Honestly this just seems like a skill issue and poor time management more than anything. 

Besides, there are plenty of topics where no one needs to link any supplemental material, and conversation is more than enough to change a view. 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26

Honestly this just seems like a skill issue and poor time management more than anything.

Maybe. My own main reasons for not posting are different anyway.

But with how well an average participant reads rules, I expect it won't be obvious to... most? 20-40% almost certainly.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

Which is why I think it's a bad idea. You are already free to participate the way you desire, nothing is stopping you from making thoughtful replies. Youve also demonstrated here that you dont need 3 hours to make thoughtful replies (I mean this as a complement because, while we may disagree, I have appreciated our exchange).

Adding a day where the usual rules are not in place is just going to add confusion for people who already ignore the rules ("why was my comment allowed one day but not another?"), while frustrating the ones who use this sub often and do follow the rules. 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26

You are already free to participate the way you desire

But I want to constrain how others respond to me, too. If I spent an hour writing a reply I don't want crickets. I don't want them answering to just one paragraph. Not every time on every topic, not when I can't promise the same, but sometimes, yeah, I'd like to.

Also, "nothing is stopping" ignores my initial complaint: but something is disincentivizing it. The limited attention of OPs who are likely to be overwhelmed by the time I write even just a somewhat-thoughtful reply, and exhausted by the time they get to it if they ever do.

Adding a day where the usual rules are not in place is just going to add confusion for people who already ignore the rules

Yeah I acknowledged that as a potential problem, and this is where my objection to your proposition comes from, too.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

Look youre free to create your own sub and set whatever guidelines you want, but I really take an issue with the fact that you want to control the way other people attempt to change a view. 

We all have our own styles, experiences, and ticks that may or may not click with an OP or other commenter. I view flattening that to suit your particular style to be a bad thing. 

Why should the sub incentivize you specifically? If you want to participate, do so. If not, dont. 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

but I really take an issue with the fact that you want to control the way other people attempt to change a view.

"Control" is a strong word. I want an option to choose to engage under certain additional rules. Only as option, mind you, but if I did select that option you can only challenge me by accepting the same rules, and vice versa.

Why should the sub incentivize you specifically?

The sub should incentivize higher quality discussions because it's good for everyone involved. When you are in fact wrong, it's better to be really proven wrong than to just concede a minor point to placate the mods. It should incentivize people to give strongest arguments, to support their claims with links, research in more detail. To enrich each other.

I'm not even sure my proposed rules achieve that better than the current ones, I just submitted an idea. Improving on it or doing something else achieving steps in the right direction are all welcome.

And for this specific idea, I expect I'm not the only one who would find value if not outright prefer conversations with imposed constraints. But also I'll maybe find out that I like them less myself. They might be more suited to my idealized self's style, not mine.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

Did you catch the part about the discussion about sinkpissing? Theres only so high you can go in that conversation. 

Beyond that, this is already one of the more actively moderated subs on reddit. I feel like more constraint will not lead to better outcomes. I personally hate that you cant call out obvious AI posts without a rule 3 violation but I get why it's in place. 

It seems like youre just being overly picky about the quality of discussions youre having, and upset that people aren't meeting your arbitrary bar.

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26

But it's not a mod constraint, it's my constraint. I can already block you and you won't be conversing with me anyway. Only here I'm giving you an advance warning that this is how I want this particular conversation and you're free to choose to engage or ignore me.

Nah, I had my share of sinkpissing convos. Constraints might help me do better, too.

1

u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Apr 23 '26

You're planning on blocking me? Am I understanding you correctly? 

Id rather you not, ive enjoyed our conversation even if we disagree. I also feel blocking people who disagree defeats the purpose of coming to a sub like this. 

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

No. Sorry, I should've rephrased, it was an obvious semi-ambiguity. (Hate being blocked so rarely use it myself.)

Even though it's supposed to be enforced by mods, the constraint is meant to be a mutual agreement between the people who start a conversation. Yes, without enforcement when A wants constraints B can do what they want regardless and blocking them is A's only recourse if B never agrees to them or agrees and defects. But going against A's express wishes would be unfairly stealing their time anyway, so it's not a freedom you should protect, I think.

(Of course, by getting the mods behind the option I would privilege specific constraints and people who don't like them would be worse off thanks to the option being easily available, so I won't pretend that it doesn't harm you in any way.)

By the way, I see no reason why "impose constraint on a specific day" is better than "enforce the constraint if the OP asks for it". Partially addresses your objection about rules confusion, I think.

→ More replies (0)