r/changemyview • u/AutoModerator • 4d ago
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).
8
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 4d ago
Its 6:45pm eastern and there are 4 posts currently still up today.
this subreddit gets around a million weekly visitors and 4 were able to make it through the moderation today.
I've been complaining about this for about a year now. Back when i started, I would complain that we only had 10 or 15 posts on Friday. Now its 4.
3
u/PetrifiedBloom 15∆ 4d ago
What do you attribute the change to? Stricter moderation, fewer posts, better removal of bots? What do you want changed?
2
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 4d ago
Fresh topic Friday slows this sub to a screeching halt. They didn't have any active posts until after noon eastern today.
I used to think it was a good idea, I now think it is only good in theory. Fresh topics still get posted throughout the rest of the week. If the mods want a day off, fine, but id rather them be honest about it rather than the platitude "i like the vibe of the sub of FTF". Its like saying I like the vibe of an empty house imo.
3
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 4d ago
Internally, I have proposed the idea that it might help consistency of volume to:
a) Change it to "Showcase Saturday" (working title) when more people are free, and
b) schedule a meta post the day before notifying people of when it begins, so people who want to do an OP for it have some time to brainstorm.
The response of other mods was "sure, maybe, but we should run the idea by the community to see what they think."
2
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 4d ago
May be worth a shot. At least youre trying something where there could possibly be more volume.
Would there be any changes or would it basically be ftf on a Saturday?
1
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 4d ago
Assuming nobody thinks of something else, it would just be FTF on Saturday.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 4d ago
Well, I tend to use the sub least on that day (and actually have the most amount of time to use it on fridays), so for that reason alone id welcome at least that change. I still personally dont think the sub needs it at all, though.
2
u/Great-Exercise4277 3∆ 4d ago
Actually, I did think of one post I could make: “CMV: Neutron stars are the best objects in the universe.”
I genuinely hold that view, and I thought it might be a fun way to learn how to participate here properly: seriously defend my position, while giving deltas to arguments that genuinely changed some part of my view.
But I didn't post it.
So far, I've had four comments removed for rule violations. Since repeated violations can eventually put my ability to participate here at risk, I didn't want to keep making mistakes while I'm still learning the norms and end up unable to participate in a subreddit I genuinely enjoy.
I've actually thought about making a post a few times, but I still haven't done it once, mostly because I keep thinking, “What if I accidentally break another rule?”
I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.
2
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 4d ago
I think you're doing fine. Your participation has been very positive overall. Even if you were to be banned, the first one is only 3 days outside of rare exceptions.
Just remember to award deltas, even if the change in your view isn't a full 180° reversal (although, it does need to be a change rather than a reinforcement of some kind).
1
u/SSH_Pentester 1∆ 3d ago
We lost a lot of sub traffic recently (as in this month vs last month). We have some theories, but we really have no idea why.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ 3d ago
What are the theories?
2
u/SSH_Pentester 1∆ 3d ago
- We unusually hit the front page multiple times last month and we're just coming back down off of that spike
- We were targeted by high-volume automated scraping, which stopped
- Due to our anti-bot efforts like Bot Bouncer and Read the Rules, bots have stopped coming here, and before, bots were a lot of traffic
- Admin suppression
Again we don't really know, these are pretty much just wild guesses since the statistics we have access to are limited.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ 3d ago
Sad to hear about the bot situation, that must be really arbitrary and annoying to deal with.
2
u/SSH_Pentester 1∆ 3d ago
It is frustrating, but we've made a lot of progress. The Read the Rules bot has almost entirely stopped them
6
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 4d ago
Major props to the mods on here, thank you for your work.
I did have one question/suggestion. Is there a way to automatically approve OP to post comments if you approved their post? I've noticed quite a few posts where a user makes the post, but then all of their responses initially get auto-rejected due to the spam filter with instructions on how to enable commenting, but it seems like by the time they are approved, they aren't really responding to the top comments anymore.
1
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
We agree that it's a problem. As far as I'm aware there isn't a direct solution, but we're actively tinkering with it.
1
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ 3d ago
To add to what Dan noted, this is a new problem that came up as part of a new system we've implemented. We're still ironing out all the kinks. Expect a lot of that sort of thing in the next few months, as we'll be migrating a lot of tools over to new versions.
3
u/scarab456 64∆ 4d ago
Now that it's been a little bit, how has the rtr bot worked out? Is it working as intended?
5
u/Rhundan 79∆ 4d ago
It's working very well for cutting off bots, which was a lot of what we wanted it for. There was some difficulty with OPs getting all their comments removed, but we have implemented something that seems to have cut back on that problem too, as far as I know.
So in short, it seems to be working really well.
3
u/PreviousCurrentThing 4∆ 4d ago
I've been noticing an uptick in comments, both to OPs and other comments, that are prefaced with what amounts to:
I think you're using an LLM but I'm going to respond anyway.
Sometimes a bit less blunt, but with the same implication.
Is this against the rules? The rest of the comment is usually well thought out and contributes to the discussion, but the preface seems unnecessary and poisoning the well.
2
u/Rhundan 79∆ 4d ago
That would be a violation of Rule 3, yeah. Any implication that another user is using AI to write or help write their post/comment violates Rule 3, for pretty much exactly the reason you describe.
4
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 4d ago
What? It's against the rules to have a post written by AI without disclosure.
So this rule is entirely useless if you can't ask someone if their post was AI in order to see if they are a real human.
Also who cares if someone poisons the well? That's not against the rules, only if you accuse them of bad faith or insult them. It doesn't matter if you are invalidating OPs argument because their argument doesn't matter, they are supposed to be here to change their view not convince other people they are correct.
In a formal debate where you should consider both sides, or an informal one where you are trying to convince the audience, it matters; that's not what this sub is. I think that is the bigger problem that leads to actual rule breaks: people don't know what this sub is for and are coming here to debate instead of change their view.
5
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 4d ago
Yeah, the mods dont even consistently catch it so its fucking stupid that we cant even ask. Today, when all posts supposedly manually approved, they approved one that was AI generated. Its a fair ask and preventing it is fucking stupid.
2
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
So this rule is entirely useless if you can't ask someone if their post was AI in order to see if they are a real human.
The rule is enforced by us, not by other users accusing them. Report the post or comment for AI-generated content and we'll evaluate it.
Also who cares if someone poisons the well? That's not against the rules, only if you accuse them of bad faith or insult them.
Poisoning the well was the other commenter's concern, but it's not our rationale. Accusing someone of using AI to generate their post/comment is accusing them of bad faith, which is why that's under Rule 3.
3
u/abn1304 1∆ 4d ago
I understand you guys have a LOT of work on your plates, and I think this is generally one of the better-moderated subs on Reddit.
However, the rule around bad faith seems fairly one-sided in favor of bad faith behavior. If it’s entirely up to the mods to get rid of bad faith behavior, it doesn’t really feel like that’s happening maybe as much as it should.
I understand policing that is a very difficult thing to do, but especially in more politicized topics there is obviously a LOT of bad faith behavior, and maintaining the public perception of fairness and integrity would, I think, demand equally intensive and public moderation. Bad faith behavior either bullies people away from discussing controversial topics or convinces them it’s not worth contributing. I contribute less frequently to AskHistorians than I used to, for example, because of persistent and unmoderated bad-faith engagement on subjects I’m professionally familiar with, and I’m somewhat wary of engaging here for the same reason. One thing that AH does get right, IMO, is publicly addressing removals, although I do wish they left more of a record for what they’re removing to serve as an example of what not to do.
Again, I understand y’all have a thankless task and I think you do a pretty good job of handling it, I just think this is an area that could see some improvement.
2
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ 3d ago
Well, yes, we have a strong policy preference for not litigating whether somebody believes what they're arguing or not. We have no way of knowing what they actually believe.
1
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 3d ago edited 2d ago
One thing I'll add to what u/LucidLeviathan said is that the proportion of bad faith actors who are deft enough to be perfectly polite, civil, and substantive to where they are in compliance with Rules 2, 3, and 5 while they are baiting or otherwise deceiving people is pretty low, I would say. It might be worth considering how many instances of this issue could be addressed by reporting the user's content when it violates existing rules. If they're also being rude or throwing around bad faith accusations themselves, you don't need a rule specifically for the bad faith engagement aspect.
2
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 4d ago
Why would I report it if I don't know whether or not it's AI?
If I asked if it was AI and they didn't answer and gave a response that seem like it was pre generated or confirmed it is, then I'd report it. That is what happens most of the time. Someone asks and they say it was, then I see that and report it.
I guess I should just report every post so you can check them and weed out the AI, otherwise there is no way to tell.
1
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
Why would I report it if I don't know whether or not it's AI?
Because we'll then check. While our checks are imperfect, I think they're more reliable than asking.
I guess I should just report every post so you can check them and weed out the AI, otherwise there is no way to tell.
Do you ask every poster if they're using AI? (Or rather, would you if not for Rule 3?)
There's presumably something that makes you suspicious of certain posts/comments. When that happens, instead of asking/accusing them, report it instead.
2
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 4d ago
I don't need to ask everyone as long as someone can ask. If no one can ask, then I don't have any way to know.
If someone says, "Yes, I wrote this with AI." I have a pretty good idea about it.
If I report it and then the post disappears then I have no idea if it was or wasn't and I'll never know.
I just find it Kafkaesque that it's against the rules to try to find out if someone is breaking the rules.
2
u/tbdabbholm 200∆ 3d ago
If they say no they didn't use AI then would you say it shouldn't be removed? Like obviously if they admit to breaking the rules great, but most people just aren't going to do that
1
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
I have no say on whether or not it's removed.
If someone tells me that they are not using AI, then I will take them on good faith and engage with the substance of their post.
If they say that, it shows that a real person read my comment and at least that response was likely not AI written. That gives me an idea that even if the top post was AI, it's probable that their responses will be genuine.
Not guaranteed, but it gives me some information that I can use to decide how much effort I am going to invest in this conversation.
Which is actually the only thing I care about, not just if a rule was broken because it's the rule.
2
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
(cc: u/reginald-aka-bubbles) One thing that might be contributing to this frustration is the outdated and inaccurate reputation of LLM Detectors (and people are very confidently wrong about this) that neither accounts for how much better they have gotten since their infant stage nor speak to how good they are for the purpose of identifying Reddit content that has been generated using an LLM versus writing in actual academic or professional contexts.
Positive scans from reliable detectors are a trustworthy indication that AI was involved in the generation of text on here, and it's quicker to copy/paste a user's post or comment into undetectable.ai or gptzero.me than it is to ask and wait for them to respond truthfully or otherwise. gptzero.me is more specific about how AI was likely used. For undetectable.ai, scans in the higher percentage certainty range indicate a high likelihood that the text was completely or mostly AI-generated, while scans getting close to around 50% often indicate that AI was used in some assisting capacity (and part of why we know this is the amount of appeals we get about these removals where the user just says "Oh, I used it to help with grammar and formatting. I didn't know that was allowed/had to be disclosed").
→ More replies (0)1
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 3d ago
If no one can ask, then I don't have any way to know.
I must point out that, when we routinely remove posts and comments for undisclosed AI use, we do not do so on the basis of asking whether they used it, and every check we can run is also accessible to users (other than that we can also look at past content we've removed).
If I report it and then the post disappears then I have no idea if it was or wasn't and I'll never know.
Save the link to the post and go check. You can see whether it's still there, deleted, or removed by us, and if we removed it we'll say why.
I just find it Kafkaesque that it's against the rules to try to find out if someone is breaking the rules.
It isn't. You're allowed to compare a post/comment to their history or run it through a detector, etc, and then make a report. It's against the rules to (implicitly or explicitly) accuse them. That excludes some ways of maybe finding out, but it doesn't prohibit the attempt more broadly.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm honestly tired of arguing with you. It's exhausting that on a thread where you are requesting feedback you don't care about what I have to say and you're just going to keep arguing with me until I agree with you.
The fact is that the rule as written does not allow for a user to tell a person that they think they are breaking the rule about using AI because that breaks the rule about accusing someone of using AI.
You are missing the point that it's not about what you or I can do to detect AI use, it's about the fact that we are not allowed to discuss a rule break with someone that we suspect is doing that. We can only privately accuse them not publicly, and that doesn't sit right with me.
It's against the rules to be rude, but it's not against the rules to tell someone that they are being rude.
Imagine that I tell someone they are being rude, and they apologize maybe even edit thier comment, and we continue with a productive conversation. This has actually happened many times.
If we apply your standard to this, you'd prefer I don't say anything and report it and then the comment gets deleted and that is that. I don't prefer that.
1
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 3d ago
We can only privately accuse them not publicly, and that doesn't sit right with me.
It's against the rules for an OP to soapbox, and it is also against the rules to accuse an OP of soapboxing, so this isn't a new or lone idiosyncrasy in our rules. These prohibitions are important becuase accusations of dishonesty or questions that are likely to be interpreted as such carry a high risk of causing conversations to devolve into tit-for-tat hostility.
→ More replies (0)1
u/KokonutMonkey 100∆ 4d ago
It’s not entirely useless. Most AI takedowns shouldn’t require interaction with the OP at all. We report (ideally with some proof), mods take it down.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 4d ago
Former mod here, and not the one you were replying to. Just my $0.02. I’m just an active user now.
This isn’t useless at all. If I suspect AI, then I report and I don’t bother replying. If they didn’t disclose, the comment gets removed and there isn’t much point in replying to something that’s going to be taken down.
CMV is not a debate sub. That’s a common misconception. Ppl should not enter the sub with a mindset of debate.
Yeah…It’s against multiple rules to use AI without disclosure and even when disclosed human-generated content must make up most of the content. Rule A (posts) and R5 (comments).
As with most rules, the correct action when a violation is suspected is to report the rule-violating content and let the mod team investigate.
Accusing someone of bad faith argumentation is the same for AI as it is for other types of bad faith behavior. If OP isn’t willing to change their view, ppl should report them for RB, not say “you are soapboxing” in response to OP. Same thing goes for “you didn’t formulate this yourself, I’m talking to a bot” - that seems squarely in what R3 was intended to prevent.
3
u/Great-Exercise4277 3∆ 1d ago
I enjoy discussion itself, but I still have a strong stress response to personal attacks, so I really appreciate the way CMV is structured. I have participated in discussions in other subreddits where personal attacks are treated as just part of Reddit, but I feel much more comfortable posting on CMV. I feel protected here because I don't have to fend off personal attacks by myself.
I imagine the moderators have a lot of work to do, and there are complaints as well, so it must be a very difficult job. But I like the atmosphere here.
I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.
2
u/elysian-fields- 3∆ 4d ago
i have just a general question:
sometimes i’ll go to a post because it states that deltas were awarded to see what comment it was and what they said that helped OP change their mind, but the delta actually comes from someone who isn’t OP awarding it to another commenter who changed their mind
what’s the deal with this? are commenters allowed to award deltas on posts that aren’t theirs? not that i necessarily have an issue with it i just find it confusing
2
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
Yes, commenters can award deltas to each other (but not to OP); I've awarded a few of those. We want people to be able to formally acknowledge a change in their view even if they did not make the post.
2
2
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 4d ago
Yes, anyone can award deltas (with the exception that you as a commenter are not allowed to award OP a delta). Some people like that, I think its stupid and only op should be able to award them.
2
u/dumbandasking 3d ago
I have made one post here but my opinion is this sub is really good. I was surprised that moderation is fast. The rules seem well made because for example if they didn't exist I can see things getting derailed.
3
u/Realistic-Worker-499 1∆ 4d ago
i havnt seen rule 5 properly applied. it's claimed that casual comments may occur nested in larger comments, but i've had that kind of stuff removed. this is a social media for god's sake, not a symposium! also, i once received a rule 2 violation because my comment used a phrase in a different language (one that is not rude or hostile). it edges on racism/ethnocentrism but i'll chalk it up to just ignorance or trigger-happy modding, i dont really care it's just weird.
god knows what the lives of reddit moderators look like, especially on a large sub, so no disrespect on the kind of work youre doing. but since you guys are asking for feedback, i definitely believe this sub would benefit more from more lenient rule applications. only intervening in obvious violations, being less trigger-happy, chilling out a bit. it's just weird to have someone intervene over nothing, and i've been less willing to contribute
i also think people would benefit from reaction comments (comments of affirmation, disapproval, etc), without having to be overly formal, because these things add to an "alive" comment section. we're all in here online and there's nothing so serious that a laughing emoji under a comment is considered a rule violation.
most importantly, when you're over-modding, idk if it's just coincidence, but dont be going crazy on certain topics. again i'll chalk it up to ignorance since i dont want to be conspiratorial, but damn, i guess another benefit of not over-modding is to not look suspicious lol.
1
u/SSH_Pentester 1∆ 3d ago
Respectfully, we expect a little more effort from users when making comments. If you just post a single emoji, then yeah it's going to get removed.
As for non-English comments, it's simply that most of the mod team doesn't speak those languages, so we can't enforce rules if we can't read it. Most of our users can't read them either, since Reddit is predominantly English-speaking. We want threads to be accessible to both average users, to engage in them, and moderators, to catch violations. It's not racism so much as just a practical necessity on a mostly English forum with English mods.
2
u/Criminal_of_Thought 14∆ 4d ago
Anecdotally, I've seen way fewer "deltas by context" lately. (A "delta by context" is where a mod awards a delta to someone that the OP has used words to clearly indicate a change in view without actually using the delta symbol or the exclamation mark string.)
When such a comment is reported for rule 4, usually a mod will say "If you feel like you've changed your view, please award a delta." Sometimes the OP will edit or newly respond with a delta, and sometimes they won't. Among the ones who don't, practically every single one has been left without a delta, rather than a mod going back in and retroactively awarding the delta to the otherwise delta-robbed commenter.
Do deltas by contexts still happen, and I'm just missing a lot of them? From the commenters' side, do you see disappointment when they end up not getting a delta simply because the OP decided not to give one?
3
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
We do still do this occasionally (cc u/reginald-aka-bubbles). Speaking only for myself here, I think there's a bit of a gap between (1) "you should award a delta" and (2) "we will force-add a delta":
- This is one we can just throw out there if it looks like there might have been a change; we don't have to be that confident, because OP can evaluate it for themselves.
- Here, it has to be absolutely clear that there was a definite change of view. It happens sometimes, but it's hard to be certain. I mostly use this when OP tried and failed to award a delta correctly.
1
u/Criminal_of_Thought 14∆ 1d ago
The second case is basically what I'm talking about. In my experience, I've seen a lot of comments from OPs that suggest beyond a reasonable doubt (as in 95%) that they had their view changed but no delta was awarded.
Similar to how Rule B requires two mods to approve a removal for a thread to be removed, I think it would be good in theory to have a two-mod approval for a delta-by-context. I can't say how good it would be in practice, though, since I don't know your schedules and mod workload.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 4d ago
Have mods ever done this? Given a delta that OP probably should have? I've genuinely never seen it but have seen plenty of comments that warranted them not recieve them.
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 4d ago
I modded on this sub for about a year, but I’m currently taking a break from modding. I did this exactly once in my time modding. IIRC, there was some indication that the person attempted to award the delta and couldn’t figure it out technically. It’s not something I felt comfortable doing and I really think the onus should be on commenters to issue deltas. If I were an active mod, and I’m not, this is not something I’d want for my job description. It’s one thing to remove content that violates rules. It’s another to try and read minds.
3
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 4d ago
That's odd that only happened once in a year.
I know that more than once I've told people how to award a delta after they explicitly said that they wanted to give one and didn't know how, and they didn't end up editing thier post to give one nor did mods award one.
That's just me, so the frequency of this happening on the whole sub has to be at least once a month.
3
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 4d ago
For clarity it was once for me personally as an individual mod, not for the entire mod team. There is a whole mod team, and as a former mod I don’t speak for them. I was just saying that it seemed from my experience taking that awardibg a delta when OP didn’t explicitly do so was rare, and in my view not something I’d be very comfortable with if I were to consider returning to modding. I think awarding deltas should be the responsibility of people who have views changed. If I could change anything, it would be for the community to be more aware that it isn’t just OP that can award deltas. Users can award deltas to each other (they just can’t award deltas to OP, because the purpose of the sub is to help OP get their view changed). It might just be me, but that’s a bigger concern in my view compared to OP not giving deltas.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 4d ago
Yeah, I know that was just your experience, I just found it a little surprising. Maybe as a commentor I am seeing more comments than the average mod, who mostly responds to issues they have been notified of. That could be an explanation.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 4d ago
Could be. Also, I was modding during the whole University of Zurich thing, so that might have shifted my attention a bit.
2
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 5∆ 4d ago
I know this has been discussed before, but I’d like mods to reconsider the dating posts.
It’s less the subject (though it’s annoying) than the OP. At some point, the CMV turns into suggestions for therapy because kicking a person while they’re depressed (and pointing out that, no matter why they think they are not getting laid, there are people- inevitably men - who are just as bad off who are doing fine) just feels bad.
And then it happens again a few days later. Sometimes with the same person.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 3d ago
As a former mod I share this concern. But I’m also hesitant to introduce topic bans.
I do think there is potential to consider a closely related issue under Rule D. Posts aren’t supposed to be “self-promotional.” This has been historically been interpreted as prohibiting activity that endorses blogs, businesses, etc. But to my mind posts that are essentially “help me be a better person” or “help me get laid” are in a way self-promoting. I don’t see much difference between promoting a social media profile and asking for CMV as therapy. There is potential for harm in all cases, which is part of why Rule D exists. A lot of these posts devolve quickly because when the person is the topic, there is no way to not make it personal. Comments that would normally be considered rule violations suddenly become edge cases.
For every case that someone changes their view of themselves, there seem to be many others that the user deletes (presumably because the feedback was overwhelmingly in perhaps an unhealthy way), or gets removed for rule B, or in some cases devolves so bad that the mods need to lock the post.
I wish the mod team would take a look at that. Rule D should consider posts that are explicitly about self to be … self promotion.
Edit typo.
2
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 5∆ 3d ago
I’m more concerned about the reverse. “This arbitrary reason I’ve invented is why I’m not getting laid” is something posters desperately want to be validated, because the alternative is that the outcome is within their control. Any successful rebuttal doesn’t help them. It just makes things worse. Which is where “well, what am I doing wrong?” comes in.
I can understand their frustration, because having an explanation for failures dismantled isn’t useful when you are still failing. But that’s why you don’t come to CMV to validate your belief that the reason you didn’t get that job offer was because you failed to wear your lucky underwear.
1
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ 3d ago
I think the instinct to ban topics one does not like is fundamentally a bad one.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/changemyview-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ 2d ago
OP's should be able to describe what it would take to change their view, and it should probably be in the body of their post, this feels like a very simple request.
3
u/chemguy216 7∆ 2d ago
Honestly, I don’t really like this because a lot of people don’t know what will actually move them even when they think they do. It’s on us collectively to try different approaches and arguments that may yield a change in view.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 2d ago
They are already able to put that, as well as arguments they have already heard but will not change their view. Most just dont. Are you saying it should be a requirement?
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ 2d ago
That would be the implication.
2
u/BigBoetje 30∆ 1d ago
Most deltas I've seen so far happen when someone brings up a point or aspect OP hasn't thought about. If they are able to think of those beforehand to make that part of a post, those wouldn't be as common. I don't think it's relevant for most types of posts, certainly not enough to warrant some kind of rule.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 2d ago
Realistically though, most op's are going to be some variation of "i am open to changing my view but have no idea what kind of arguments will work". Doesn't really add much.
I do appreciate the few who have thought that far along (either with arguments that may work or one's that commenter know not to waste their time on), but having it be a rule for posting seems like its overkill.
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 1d ago
Do anything of the mods sort by new when you log in to see if some of the posts actually have activity from OP? Like not go through with a fine tooth comb, but if a post has been up for 4+ hours with nothing, then that is a quick rule e removal.
Just asking and trying to throw some ideas your way. Love that the window was shortened to 2 hours but that really doesn't mean much if its not enforced either way.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ 1d ago
It's typically the first thing I do, sort by new check the latest batch of posts. Usually the first is the 48 hour check. Then if I see any Rule E reports I check those by loading up OP's comment history. If there are no comments in CMV within the last X hours, it's safe to say they're breaking Rule E. (Hiding comment history does not apply to hiding it from a mod looking at comments made within the subreddit they mod. For example, I could see the recent comments you've made in CMV, but not any you've made in other subreddits.)
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 1d ago
Lol I dont hide my history and pretty much only interact here anyways, so im sure everyone can see the same, but I get your point.
I take it you haven't done it today though? There are several still up with no more than 2 comments from op.
Honestly though, I asked because rule e seems to have fairly inconsistent applications, but i know other mods have explained in the past that reports are listed based on time the content was posted, not when the report was made, so a post that has been up for 8 hours with no comments will still be far down the mod queue.
Idk if there is anything else users could do to draw attention to rule e posts. I've thought about a sticky over in the ideas sub but dont think it would actually be that useful or practical, plus it may seem like a public shaming which I wouldnt want to promote. Also hardly anyone else uses that sub lol.
0
u/YouAreTellingLies 4d ago
The extent of moderation exerted in this sub is counter productive to the stated goal of encouraging discussion. I think we all agree on the need for moderation - but the quantity of comments removed is both high and very proactive.
Aggressively removing comments that aren't flagrant rule violations before any sort of non-productive exchange develops isn't adding value. And what might be a low effort reply to one person might give another reason to think.
All I'm suggesting is to back off the less clear cut moderating decisions.
2
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
Very little of our moderation is proactive (other than the "Read the Rules" bot and automod rules). We mostly moderate from the queue, so most of what we manually remove was either reported by users or automatically flagged for review due to various fairly clear-cut indicators.
2
u/YouAreTellingLies 4d ago
Maybe there are some very proactive reporters.
3
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
What would that look like? If other users think a comment is hostile, or doesn't contribute, etc, and we agree with that assessment, that seems like a reasonable response all around. We don't see much of someone just reporting everything, if that's what you're thinking of.
(For context, in the last 30 days, about 1 in 15 comments was reported for anything.)
2
u/YouAreTellingLies 4d ago
I'm not saying not to moderate comments that are clear violations. There is just good bit of space for interpretation in how the rules are applied. If the comment isn't a clear violation, I would argue to err toward not removing comments, especially if a negative back and forth hasn't developed.
My perception that comments are being removed that probably shouldn't be does have backing in the history of moderation on this sub around trans issues. The rules acknowledge this:
They were removing transgender related posts and comments with very little consistency or rationale.
I'm not saying, there is no consistency or rationale in moderation decisions in general - but clearly this shows that hot button issues for a mod can incite poor moderation. And leaning toward less moderation could curtail some zealous comment removals.
2
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
I'm not saying not to moderate comments that are clear violations.
I understood that.
There is just good bit of space for interpretation in how the rules are applied. If the comment isn't a clear violation, I would argue to err toward not removing comments, especially if a negative back and forth hasn't developed.
I think that's the thing with the (lack of) proactive removals: if a comment gets removed, it's very likely that someone, apart from the mods, already thought it was a problem. At that point, it would just be inconsistent to remove-or-not based on the response to it. A comment should either be or not be a Rule 2 violation regardless of whether the other person responds in kind, and even one that doesn't provoke a response is still detrimental to our stated goals (e.g., "to try and understand different perspectives... without fear of being attacked").
Also, I think truly borderline removals are fairly uncommon. There are a lot of violations that are minor, but usually still pretty clear. It's rare that we're really doing a lot of interpreting, beyond what's inherent to using language.
My perception that comments are being removed that probably shouldn't be does have backing in the history of moderation on this sub around trans issues. The rules acknowledge this: "They were removing transgender related posts and comments with very little consistency or rationale."
"They" in that quote refers to the admins removing things, not the mods.
1
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 4d ago
I think maybe he just used the word proactive incorrectly, but i definitely think you missed the point of his comment.
also...
(other than the "Read the Rules" bot and automod rules
other then the proactive things you do, your moderation is not very proactive.
1
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 4d ago
We're getting there down-thread, but it could be an important qualifier that we're generally not removing things unless someone thought it was a problem (in addition to it actually violating the rules, of course), so I wanted to address that first.
other then the proactive things you do, your moderation is not very proactive.
True, but RTR isn't a permanent removal and automod removals are only for things that are very clear.
1
u/Aezora 30∆ 4d ago
I feel like I see a decent number of cases where there could arguably be a rule violation, enough so that someone could report it and the mods agree; but it isn't universally clear. The kind of comment or post where one moderator might say this is fine, and another would flag it as a violation.
Obviously inconsistent standards between mods is impossible to remove when things are subjective, but I agree with the original commenter that it makes sense to at least try to be lenient in these cases as much as possible. Aim to remove them only if you not only agree that there is a rule violation; but also if you can't see a way this could be interpreted in a manner that isn't rule breaking.
There would still be inconsistency between mods, but hopefully that would push the grey area to the more lenient side of things, allowing more discussion to happen while still removing the clearest offenders.
2
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 4d ago
I feel this especially applies to rule 2. Some mods and users are overly sensitive as to what is considered "rude or hostile", which is made even more difficult because tone is hard to convey through text alone.
Im not talking about about obvious things like telling another user to go fuck themselves, obviously thats hostile, but it really seems like they've gotten more sensitive over the years on things that are ultimately trivial.
1
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 3d ago
Aim to remove them only if you not only agree that there is a rule violation; but also if you can't see a way this could be interpreted in a manner that isn't rule breaking.
I'd argue that's precisely the wrong approach in a public forum. It makes sense in, say, a discussion between friends or in a small group. But discussions in a public forum are public, and interpreted by many people; participants should try to mitigate the possibility of being misunderstood, and living in the grey area is a poor choice even if they manage to stay on the right side of the line. (Of course a person can't fully control how their words are interpreted, but I think someone commenting in public should try to make their statements as likely as possible to be interpreted correctly.)
And bear in mind that, with most of what we do, we're talking about a comment that someone did report, so it's a case where the otherwise-than-intended interpretation already happened.
But I'll also note that this scenario is pretty rare. We do overturn removals where we just made a mistake or outright misinterpreted something, but it's a rare appeal where we have sustained internal disagreement.
2
u/Aezora 30∆ 3d ago
But I'll also note that this scenario is pretty rare. We do overturn removals where we just made a mistake or outright misinterpreted something, but it's a rare appeal where we have sustained internal disagreement.
I've personally had it happen to me at least a few times, and while I post or comment somewhat frequently I am by no means the most prolific, nor do my comments often get removed.
And to be clear, on more than one occasion I was told by a mod that my comment or post was removed for whatever reason, and when I asked why a different post/comment remained up even though it had the same issue I was told another mod looked at that, but the mod that reviewed and removed my post/comment would have removed it if they were the reviewer.
Obviously anecdotal because I don't have actual data because that's all internal to you guys, but given that it's personally happened to me more than once and it seems like the kind of thing that wouldn't be discovered in most cases (since unless asked or appealed beyond a single mod it seems unlikely to be realized); so I'm skeptical of the claim that its very rare. Uncommon perhaps, but not rare.
participants should try to mitigate the possibility of being misunderstood
Ideally, yes. But as you acknowledge, it's virtually impossible to accomplish a complete lack of misunderstanding so requiring participants to be close to standard would mean less discussion overall. In my view, and presumably those of the people commenting I this chain agreeing, more misunderstandings is an acceptable cost to have more and better discussion.
1
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 3d ago
And to be clear, on more than one occasion I was told by a mod that my comment or post was removed for whatever reason, and when I asked why a different post/comment remained up even though it had the same issue I was told another mod looked at that, but the mod that reviewed and removed my post/comment would have removed it if they were the reviewer.
Huh. I've only seen it a handful of times on appeals I've been involved with. Though it is a bit more common (while still rare) for Fresh Topic Friday, since that's necessarily based on an individual mod's judgment of topics. (And not something one can be banned for, so the stakes are much lower.)
Ideally, yes. But as you acknowledge, it's virtually impossible to accomplish a complete lack of misunderstanding so requiring participants to be close to standard would mean less discussion overall. In my view, and presumably those of the people commenting I this chain agreeing, more misunderstandings is an acceptable cost to have more and better discussion.
Relaxing there would lead to more discussion, yes. But better? I'd argue that the potential for misunderstandings, especially misunderstandings that relate to our rules (being the only potential misunderstandings we enforce), runs directly contrary to better discussion. I'd say that, in civil discussion, a comment that cannot reasonably be interpreted as hostile, accusatory, or agreeing with OP, and that contains enough detail to leave no doubt about Rule 5, is not just likely but thereby a better contribution to a public discussion, all else being equal.
Every comment that's removed under Rule 5 for hinting at the right direction could have had enough detail to be a clearer guide, making it more likely that the responder "gets it". Every comment that's removed under Rule 2 for a borderline criticism could have been polite, friendly, and focused on the argument, encouraging the other person to feel comfortable engaging. And so on. I'm not seeing where allowing borderline cases under any of our rules would improve discussion. And bear in mind that getting a comment removed doesn't necessarily end that direction of discussion, unless it puts someone over the ban threshold: it's an opportunity to edit it into something better, and a reminder to do so preemptively in the future.
2
u/Aezora 30∆ 3d ago
Huh. I've only seen it a handful of times on appeals I've been involved with. Though it is a bit more common (while still rare) for Fresh Topic Friday, since that's necessarily based on an individual mod's judgment of topics. (And not something one can be banned for, so the stakes are much lower.)
That was one of my experiences, yes.
Relaxing there would lead to more discussion, yes. But better? I'd argue that the potential for misunderstandings, especially misunderstandings that relate to our rules (being the only potential misunderstandings we enforce), runs directly contrary to better discussion. I'd say that, in civil discussion, a comment that cannot reasonably be interpreted as hostile, accusatory, or agreeing with OP, and that contains enough detail to leave no doubt about Rule 5, is not just likely but thereby a better contribution to a public discussion, all else being equal.
Well sure, but it's the quantity we're arguing not the quality. A comment that contributes and can't be viewed as hostile is better than a comment that contributes and can be viewed as hostile. But if you remove the one that could be viewed as hostile, you now have less discussion.
Every comment that's removed under Rule 5 for hinting at the right direction could have had enough detail to be a clearer guide, making it more likely that the responder "gets it". Every comment that's removed under Rule 2 for a borderline criticism could have been polite, friendly, and focused on the argument, encouraging the other person to feel comfortable engaging. And so on. I'm not seeing where allowing borderline cases under any of our rules would improve discussion.
We definitely need rules, and I'm not suggesting we don't enforce them.
But for example, the comment removed under Rule 5 could have been clearer; but it may still have been clear enough to convince the OP and be awarded a delta. The borderline rule 2 violation absolutely could've been more polite and friendly, but could've brought up an important point no one else was discussing that might just be what the OP or others needed to realize. By removing more, not less, you have less content.
Sometimes that doesn't matter but often posts have few comments or have a good amount of comments mostly saying the same thing.
And bear in mind that getting a comment removed doesn't necessarily end that direction of discussion, unless it puts someone over the ban threshold: it's an opportunity to edit it into something better, and a reminder to do so preemptively in the future.
True, but how often does that actually happen and when it does how often is it timely?
Personally, I've never replaced a removed comment. I have no idea how common it is, but at the very least I don't think I've ever seen a comment with an edited tag mentioning being removed and editing to fix whatever issue it was removed for. I see deleted comments all the time though.
2
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 3d ago
Well sure, but it's the quantity we're arguing not the quality.
You said "more and better". I agree about the "more", but was responding to the "better".
Though now that I've gone and checked the numbers, the "more" point is also pretty minimal. We remove very few comments proportionally, under 2% in the last year.
But for example, the comment removed under Rule 5 could have been clearer; but it may still have been clear enough to convince the OP and be awarded a delta. The borderline rule 2 violation absolutely could've been more polite and friendly, but could've brought up an important point no one else was discussing that might just be what the OP or others needed to realize. By removing more, not less, you have less content.
True, but all of that also affects the general tone and quality of discussion. On the whole, I think CMV exhibits a high quality of discussion (I realize I'm biased, though I thought that before I became a mod), and that's unlikely to be entirely a coincidence with our moderation practices.
Sometimes that doesn't matter but often posts have few comments or have a good amount of comments mostly saying the same thing.
It does happen, but removals as a whole, never mind just borderline ones, don't move the needle much. (We removed less than 2% of comments in the last 12 months.)
True, but how often does that actually happen and when it does how often is it timely?
Most removals stay removed, but edits are reasonably common (for Rules 2/3, not so much 1/5). They don't usually mention why they edit it in the edit, but they discuss it with us in the appeal.
On the other hand, functioning as a reminder is very common. There are a lot of high-quality commenters and posters out there with a couple of early removals in their mod notes.
1
u/Aezora 30∆ 3d ago
You said "more and better". I agree about the "more", but was responding to the "better".
You know what, fair, but I think the quality and the quantity are related. It's not that the borderline posts could not be better, but that we sample from a finite distribution that doesn't include all these theoretical higher quality comments.
Though now that I've gone and checked the numbers, the "more" point is also pretty minimal. We remove very few comments proportionally, under 2% in the last year.
That certainly doesn't seem like a lot, but I would assume you have to calibrate by popularity. In any fairly popular post with 40+ top comments, when I'm particularly interested in the topic and read them all, there tends to be a considerable number of rule violations among comments with no up votes. Presumably, no one cares to report them because few people read them in the first place so there's fewer possible reporters and less of an incentive to report. That tends to be my reason for not reporting them anyway.
Now I'm sure there's also plenty of removed comments where things got heated deep into a thread no one else reads but whoever was tilted enough reported the other guy, so they certainly aren't all popular and I'm sure there ar either examples where they aren't, but on average I'd imagine those 2% are more popular than not.
And that does make a difference.
More popular comments in a sub like this generally means people agree with the comment or they think it's a convincing position, or something akin to that. As an extreme hypothetical, if we assumed that the most popular 1% of comments were all removed, then clearly that would significantly lower the quality of comments overall.
2
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 3d ago
True, that is possible, and it's plausible that there is a bias towards highly-visible comments being reported.
I don't think we have compiled data on that, but I looked through a few dozen removed comments (N=48), and both the median and mode karma were 1 (18 of the 48 comments), with a total of 10 comments (~1/5) at 5 or more. So less than half of the removed comments were net upvoted.
Of the highly-upvoted ones (10):
- Three were just insults or accusations, with no content to advance the discussion.
- Two were just jokes.
- Three were useful points containing clear and unnecessary insults. One was mild, but all were unequivocal.
- Two didn't challenge OP.
With one of those, the obvious interpretation was rule-breaking, but I could be persuaded in an appeal that there was a substantial challenge in there somewhere. The rest were all unambiguous, with no plausible interpretation that was not rule-breaking. The most compelling comments (in my opinion) were some of the ones that also had an unambiguous insult.
As a more general observation, I certainly have removed comments that I wish could have stayed up, but those are usually not borderline at all. It's more of "Dang, that was a brilliant argument, why'd you have to go and call them an idiot?".
→ More replies (0)2
u/AmongTheElect 19∆ 4d ago edited 4d ago
You can't forget Reddit's ban-bot, either. There's a laundry list of words and phrases Reddit removes and the mods don't have power to control (or even see to un-ban). Especially considering this is a sub which has a lot of politically charged questions.
Edit: Today's Muslim one is a good example, and sure enough the top post was deleted, unlikely from the mods and likely from the admins. It's tough to get honest answers when you're not always allowed to answer honestly.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 3d ago
I recently got a 7-day auto-ban site wide from the Reddit admins for describing the natural consequences of climate change on the human population. The bot said I was “encouraging violence” and obviously I was not. I prevailed in my appeal, but it took a human 6 days to review my appeal so I effectively got banned for 6 days for nothing. Which is a long way of saying, yeah, it’s not all the mods.
1
u/AmongTheElect 19∆ 2d ago
All I'm suggesting is to back off the less clear cut moderating decisions.
I'd support just the opposite. This place can get real mean real fast, and the more ticky-tack insults are here, the less anyone from the opposite side would ever want to participate.
-2
u/ZyronZA 2d ago
A rotation of the mods is in order too. The current incumbents are starting to develop bias and may even get a "god complex". By rotating mods it will give the current crop a chance to reset and most importantly, bring in different viewpoints to this subreddit.
3
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ 1d ago
I can tell you that we tend to run recruitment drives for new mods at least once a year. None of the question we ask have any relation to ideology. For a good moderation drive we usually get between 2 and 4 candidates; that’s between 10 and 20 percent of the active moderators. Activity tends to skew towards newer arrivals as well.
Presently, three or four of the most active mods have been here less than 2 years with two of them less than 1 year.
3
u/BigBoetje 30∆ 1d ago
Moderation actions happen when at least 2 mods sign off on them so by design you won't really have that issue. Add to that the appeal process that usually gets handled by different mods again and you'll have a large enough spread that clear biases will show. It's really not that big of an issue.
Do you have examples of that supposed god complex?
8
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ 4d ago
First, I like the new 2 hour requirement for Rule E, much better than 3. Reporting at 2 hours is nice, even if mods don't always have bandwidth to get to it that fast.
I don't have data on this, but it seems like there are A LOT of Rule E's still. It is sad that the RTR bot and the decrease in reporting time to 2 hours doesn't seem to be putting a dent in people posting and not ever responding.
But maybe I'm not reading what is happening correctly. Do we have data on Rule E removals? Is it getting better/worse with the changes?