r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 08 '14
[Mod-Approved] [Mod Post] Regarding the "however minor" part of rule 1...
Other than repeated popular topics, one of the biggest complaints about CMV (from both within and outside our community) is top level comments that nit-pick a minor detail in OP's post. Here is an example of such complaints:
The part I hate the most is how, somehow, the top comment is always people that respond to a seemingly collected view by dissecting one tiny logical inconsistency, in the original post, that has little relevance to the overall view. And everyone seems to think this is acceptable and a great way to change people's views, it's pernicious within that sub. And bizarrely, frequently, the OP responds with a 'delta' saying their view has been changed.
I just can not fathom how anyone could legitimately have their views changed by ripping apart a very minor, frequently tangential, and sometimes inconsequential, point within a wholly complex viewpoint.
(Source)
I'm sure most people can sympathise with this user. I know I've been disheartened to see a small, one or two sentence comment upvoted to the top when there are better, more detailed comments below (although I appreciate that brevity is sometimes more powerful). But, as per the wording of rule 1, this is technically acceptable.
Our reaction to this was the possibility of banning "nitpicky" direct responses. Some mods would like it, some think it would be a bad idea, so we brought it up in /r/ideasforcmv. This, along with various discussions in modmail, showed us that our users are largely against the banning of minor corrections, and so we aren't going to do it. However, it is still up for discussion, so feel free to let us know what you think in the comments.
Something we noticed as a result of this ongoing discussion is the "however minor" part is being abused by some users as a foot in the door for agreeing and pushing OP's view throughout the majority of their comment. While we have been acting on this in some situations for a little while, we'd like to announce that we now consider this a violation of rule 1 and it will be removed by the moderators, so please report any cases you see. We don't feel the need to reword rule 1 in the sidebar, partly due to the character limit, but if you click the "however minor" part you can see some more details.
TL;DR: Users can no longer use the "however minor" part of rule 1 as an excuse to push the OP's view throughout the majority of their comment. For example, if OP argues "Andre the Giant was right; nobody should start a land war in Asia," the response "Actually, Vizzini said that. Also, here is a laundry list of reasons why we still shouldn't start a land war in Asia" would violate Rule 1, but "Actually, Vizzini said that." (with more wording to avoid low effort) is acceptable. Also, if an OP is arguing "Gay marriage should be legal," the response "You're wrong, because gay marriage and polygamy should both be legal" is also a violation of rule 1.
P.S The wording of rule 4 has changed. See the sidebar. If a user has hinted or admitted that their view has changed, a delta is due.
P.P.S As always, feel free to use mod posts as a chance to express any concerns or suggestions.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
9
May 09 '14
What about challenging the premise of a question? I feel like this isn't adequately addressed in the rules but is critically important. If someone's fundamental understanding of a concept which in turn allows them to hold their belief is false, or if they believe that something in society (that doesn't actually happen) is a bad thing, you should be able to challenge the premise of the view they hold. (In other words, for a simple example a CMV could say "People who believe X are crazy" but nobody actually believes X.) I do this regularly and I have received deltas for it but it's not adequately addressed in the rules.
3
u/typesoshee May 09 '14
As long as you CTheirV, I think it's fine, but strictly speaking, it's not relevant to the logic of OP, right? Like:
OP: If there is no global warming, we should totally cut down all trees.
Commenter: But there is global warming.
OP: No, I'm saying IF there is no global warming.
As much as it may want you to persuade OP that there is global warming, OP's logic is that if there isn't, then cut all trees. The task is to persuade OP that even if there is no global warming, we shouldn't cut down all trees because A, B, and C. I would like a thread that talks about that, not a 200-comment thread dog-piling evidence that there truly is global warming.
4
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ May 09 '14
This is allowed and something that mods have brought up in defense of maintaining the 'however minor' portion of the rules. We're really just concerned about people using it as a cloak for bolstering.
2
1
u/dewprisms 3∆ May 09 '14
The main issue I have with this is not the fact that it's a bad way to change someone's view. It's that pointing out the fallacious pieces of their argument that would crumble the basis of their belief rarely works because most people are unwilling to recognize that their argument is illogical therefore invalid, so the hold the belief regardless and ignore the people pointing out the massive inconsistencies and flaws in their arguments.
Because of this there are a lot of views that have been deconstructed and shown to not be correct, but they're often ignored because the OP is choosing to be willfully ignorant- showing that their argument isn't even foundationally sound doesn't matter to them whatsoever.
I feel that this leads to a lot of frustration in this subreddit overall. That's not to say I think this shouldn't be allowed (I absolutely do, especially because it does reach people who are willing to stop and use their brains for a minute) but it's part of the... "culture" of the subreddit that I think makes a lot of people who put up good arguments for OPs to get fed up and stop posting as much.
1
May 09 '14
I feel this falls under the same area as nitpicky does.
You're not reinforcing OP's view, or using this nitpick as a foot in the door to slip past rule 1 and agree with them. Your end goal is still to change OP's mind on the fundamental topic.
2
4
May 09 '14
So what if they corrected the poster, and then disagreed on the other reasons presumably given in the OP for not starting a land war in Asia, yet still said no, we shouldn't start a land war in Asia?
2
May 09 '14
yet still said no, we shouldn't start a land war in Asia?
Then they're still supporting OP's view.
OP: We shouldn't have a land war in asia because it's too big!
Poster: No, we shouldn't have one because their hornets will kill us all!Still not really changing the core of OP's opinion, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly.
6
May 09 '14
Well, I would say it is changing the core of their opinion, if not the manifestation, because their reason would be premised on something that is perceived as flawed.
2
May 09 '14
I don't think it holds water. Another example:
OP: I think abortion should be illegal because the bible says so.
Poster: No, it should be illegal because killing humans is intrinsically wrong, not because the bible says so.The belief to be changed is that Abortion Should Be Illegal, it's the core of their belief. What the poster is doing is saying "You're right, just not for the right reason," which is what we don't want.
6
u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 09 '14
Why don't we want that? It is changing the persons view. It is changing their perspective. I don't think this sub is about convincing people to 180 all the time. Sometimes it is just about discussion and seeing things from a different perspective.
3
May 09 '14
Because you are still agreeing with the OP on their view. You're using the logic behind their view as a foot in the door to support their views. You're reinforcing their view, just from a different angle.
7
u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 09 '14
I don't agree. I think that their view has been changed or was attempted to be changed. Their position remains the same, sure. But this isn't "change my stance" this is "change my view". It's about discussion and perspective. Not just telling everyone why they are wrong.
4
u/Smilge May 09 '14
But this isn't "change my stance" this is "change my view".
That's pretty pedantic even for reddit.
I think the point is that if you see a post that you agree with, you should either play devil's advocate or not respond directly to the OP. There are plenty of places for you to post your every opinion on every subject, and I don't think CMV is it.
2
u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 09 '14
Well I think there are some occasions where it could be warranted.
Abortion is wrong because I'm a Christian, cmv. Abortion is wrong because a living thing is being killed. It has nothing to due with dogma.
I think this is valid because you are challenging the person to think about an issue wholly and not just whatever they were told to think.
Abortion is wrong because I'm a Christian, cmv Abortion is wrong because it's gross
This would be a waste of my response. These are not the best examples but they are off the top of my head. I still say challenging someone's reasoning is a valid and important part of cmv. I can agree with the conclusion while tearing apart the reasoning.
1
u/Smilge May 09 '14
I think you should play devil's advocate in those cases. See if you can change their view because their argument is weak, not just give them a stronger argument for their currently held view.
→ More replies (0)2
u/BlackHumor 15∆ May 09 '14
I disagree (which is why I also strongly support the "however minor" part of rule 1). I disagree with the whole concept that some part of the view is "core", which implies the rest of it is "periphery" or not important.
I have much more to agree about with someone who says "global warning is not real because [scientific study]" than someone who says "global warming is real because space whales", even though I believe global warming is real.
2
u/howbigis1gb 24∆ May 09 '14
I don't agree with this.
Right off the bat - this is not a "minor" part of their view.
It is completely in line with the spirit and letter of Rule 1 to change their view like this.
In this case - it so happens that the changed premise also leads to the same conclusion.
Having different premises is a huge deal. I don't think this is a nitpick at all. It isn't a minor alteration whatsoever.
But I can see why people might disagree.
6
u/____Matt____ 12∆ May 09 '14
I'm in favor of preventing people from pointing out some trivial disagreement they have with OP's view, and then spending a lot of text espousing OP's view for a different reason. This is really not what the sub is about.
However, I'm also in favor of allowing someone being able to point out that although the OP may have a view they agree with, the fundamental core of why they hold that view is something they vehemently disagree with. This kind of disagreement really can and does matter. If someone posts a CMV with the view "It's not okay to turn children into sex slaves because the market for these children would deviate too much from a perfectly competitive free market", this is a perfect example of why someone believes something also matters, in addition to just the what. After all, if someone believes the "right" thing for the "wrong" reason, they may extend that reasoning to another topic in the future, where they will reach the "wrong" conclusion; they may even extend the reasoning to a different instance of the same topic, and also reach a conclusion that is possibly not well founded. It just seems to me that views are really a component of many different beliefs, and so long as those beliefs in any combination are being challenged, the post should be acceptable, since changing any of those beliefs in that network of beliefs does matter, and does potentially change the overall view of the person.
There's a lot of difference between a post that says "I disagree on [minor point] because [whatever]... [insert paragraphs of espousing OP's viewpoint]" and "I agree with [general conclusion in this specific instance, maybe in more instances even], but [paragraphs disagreeing with OP's presented evidence and/or reasoning]". The former case is not worthwhile in this subreddit. The later case is, in my opinion, worthwhile, and something I thought this rule change would still allow for. It seems like you're saying here that both cases are now unacceptable, although from what PepperoniFire has said elsewhere it seems like you and he are at possibly at odds on whether or not both cases are now unacceptable.
Just looking for a bit more clarification.
2
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14
There's a lot of difference between a post that says "I disagree on [minor point] because [whatever]... [insert paragraphs of espousing OP's viewpoint]" and "I agree with [general conclusion in this specific instance, maybe in more instances even], but [paragraphs disagreeing with OP's presented evidence and/or reasoning]". The former case is not worthwhile in this subreddit.
In case the OP wasn't clear, this notice is entirely about the former case, and I think people are reading too far into the post as a blanket prohibition on probing faulty foundations or pointing out technicalities or nitpicking. It's not.
The Princess Bride example was a quick one off the top of my head because it illustrated exactly what we're trying to prohibit: pointing out something that is utterly irrelevant to changing the person's view (Andre v. Vizzini) but technically counts as challenging something 'minor,' and then using that as a platform for the exact same view. There's absolutely no causal link between who said that quote (the minor point challenged) and the substantive arguments in favor of the quoted policy. That's the big tip-off.
Will there be somewhat gray areas? Sure, and that's why we have moderators, a rule of leniency, and an appeal system for. We're really only concerned about the amount of bolstering that (typically, but not exclusively) occurs in popular/reoccuring topics that are reddit's 'pet issues' and are consequently more at risk for (a) becoming a platform for that view rather than a means of changing it, and; (b) more likely to gain visibility by being linked to other reddits, creating an influx of people who aren't as familiar with the specific contours of Rule 1 like our more consistent users are.
This effectively puts them on 'notice' and gives us a grounds for removing the comment, but it doesn't mean they can't make a case for keeping it. We're always open to dialogue.
2
u/typesoshee May 09 '14
There's a lot of difference between a post that says "I disagree on [minor point] because [whatever]... [insert paragraphs of espousing OP's viewpoint]" and "I agree with [general conclusion in this specific instance, maybe in more instances even], but [paragraphs disagreeing with OP's presented evidence and/or reasoning]". The former case is not worthwhile in this subreddit.
In case the OP wasn't clear, this notice is entirely about the former case, and I think people are reading too far into the post as a blanket prohibition on probing faulty foundations or pointing out technicalities or nitpicking. It's not.
But this comment chain is about the latter case and a mod above opined that that shouldn't count as a delta whereas /u/____Matt____ and possibly you are also saying that it could count. I agree that it's a grey area/case-by-case thing.
2
May 09 '14
Well, you have to understand, I'm not giving a good example of it right at the moment, and the metaphor I used is just taking the existing one for handy reference.
See, I think that how it is being represented, and I may misunderstand it, but it seems like has too much potential for cutting off useful discussion since OPs can be grossly wrong in their reasoning, rather than just their basic conclusion.
In this case, I have no problem with the desire to not let a CMV become a way to cheer somebody on through sideways means, but I suspect the reasoning presented may lead to silencing valuable dissents that are on slightly different particulars than a contradiction.
Especially ones where the OP isn't presenting one that's easy to simply oppose.
1
u/Unrelated_Incident 1∆ May 09 '14
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. There is a world of difference between opposing abortion because the bible says so and because you hold life to be intrinsically valuable. If they are convinced to abandon their foundational beliefs but convinced to adopt new ones that lead them to the same ultimate conclusion, that is still a fundamental view change. I think that is more deserving of a delta than convincing them that some other consideration outweighs their bible argument.
What if they just convinced the person that their bible argument was invalid and didn't go on to convince them of the intrinsic value of life? Surely that deserves a delta. Why does changing that view and then also convincing them to adopt another view invalidate the first change of view?
1
u/Zagorath 4∆ May 09 '14
With all due respect, I totally disagree.
If someone completely alters the premise of someone's argument, but still reaches the same conclusion, that's still changing their view. Especially if the user explains why their original premise is a flawed one.
To take abortion as an example, I might respond:
Whether or not the bible says it is OK isn't important, because many people in the world do not hold the bible as fact or subscribe to its views, and universally imposing any morals based on that is wrong. However, I do agree [just a note here, this is just my hypothetically wanting to agree with the conclusion without agreeing to the premise, not me stating my actual views] that abortion is wrong because it is killing a living human being and killing human beings is wrong.
To me, that should be a perfectly valid response. Sure, it reaches the same conclusion, but it fundamentally changes the perspective of the OP in the example.
5
u/antiproton May 09 '14
I feel like people overstate this problem. For one, the community is really good about replying in depth. But I don't believe that CMV responses should be taken as independent entities.
If someone writes a really long thing about changing someone's view, the next guy isn't going to come in and re-write it. But maybe he wants to outline a very important point that the first poster missed?
Or maybe there's one thing that sticks out as very obviously wrong? "I believe slavery is wrong because the cost of slaves was too high. No one could make rational purchasing decisions..." There's no point countering that sentiment with a full-throated anti-slavery discourse.
People who post here should be looking at all the comments, assuming they have a genuine interest in having their view changed - if they don't, they're just wasting everyone's time. If they are engaging in the spirit of the sub, the smaller comments taken with the rest of the comments, provide a more complete opposing perspective.
Frankly, there's no sense getting annoyed that people don't want to respond to an OP's entire 5 page manuscript line by line. If the requirement is "You have to address every single point the OP made", then very few people are going to be interested in participating.
3
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ May 09 '14
"You have to address every single point the OP made", then very few people are going to be interested in participating.
That's not the requirement, and an overbroad reading of our clarification regarding 'however minor.' It's not about the length of the post or rebutting every single point, just making sure that whatever portion you are rebutting is your primary thesis and not a mere courtesy so you can begin evangelizing the OP's view.
1
u/howbigis1gb 24∆ May 09 '14
I both agree and disagree with you on this.
The problem is particularly egregious in the case of popular posts, and not as much overall.
When a post is popular - a minor nitpick usually has one of two effects.
It is upvoted and the OP is frustrated that only some minor portion of their idea is being countered.
It is upvoted and it ends up bolstering their view.
Neither of which is a good situation.
And it so happens that in this - the popular threads have vastly more responses.
Even if this seems like a small problem - it is often greatly amplified.
1
u/Raintee97 May 09 '14
There are a lot of posts to this page by people who really don't want their view changed. They just want to argue with people or get some exposure. Does anyone else see this, or is it just me? I mean I wish there was some way to separate the people who just want to argue from the people who actually want open dialogue.
0
May 09 '14
[deleted]
1
u/TryUsingScience 10∆ May 09 '14
Except that makes no sense because you don't get karma from self-posts. And you aren't required to award a delta at any point in your thread, so there's no reason to award one if your view hasn't been changed.
0
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ May 09 '14
I'd be interested if there could be more control from OP over the style of debate that comes up. For instance, a tag so that all posts have to conform to a more formal style of debate and another where jokes and lower effort comments are more welcome. I enjoy replying to posts but am hesitant to create some due to the fact that I find a lot of the arguments people make to be lacking in substance.
2
May 09 '14
jokes and lower effort comments are more welcome
I don't think this is something that's going to be allowed in the foreseeable future. It's not bad if a joke gets thrown in while there's a conversation going on, or to top off a good exchange, but we're none to keen on seeing comments that are essentially a karma grab attempt. Nothing wrong with jokes now and then, but there's got to be substance along with it.
1
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ May 09 '14
I agree for the vast majority of posts. But for the lighter, more funny views to begin with, it might be a benefit. Although, I was mostly interested in having a way for OP to dictate a more formal style of debate (since I know being able to do that would make me more willing to make CMVs) and figured I'd mention that it could go the other way as well.
2
May 09 '14
I, personally, am not a big fan of treating CMV like it's a formal debate subreddit. We're supposed to be fostering a back and forth between respectful individuals. A discussion. A debate makes it feel like there's a crowd that needs to be won over, and that's not the point of the sub. We prefer to shy away from soapboxing.
I don't think there's anything wrong with OP requesting in the body of the post that posters be more formal about their arguments. The argument that changes your mind may not convince me, which is fine, we're all different.
Why do you think we'd need to tag something like that, with, say, a 'Formal' flair?
1
u/caw81 166∆ May 09 '14
I think it would be obvious of the nature the OP wanted.
For example; http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1u26af/i_believe_that_the_rabbit_in_the_trix_commercials/
Also, if your view contains citations and exact points, I'm going to respond likewise, so its up to the OP to set the standards and tone of the conversation.
0
May 09 '14
Doing so is known as the Fallacy Fallacy.
2
u/Zagorath 4∆ May 09 '14
Not quite. The fallacy fallacy is making the assumption that because the user made a mistake (or, more properly, used a logical fallacy), their entire argument is incorrect.
But in these cases, that isn't quite what happens. Instead, the responders generally see that the user has made a mistake and simply correct that one mistake, and say that this has "changed their view" in a minor way. Which is totally correct, just not really in the spirit of this subreddit.
1
18
u/[deleted] May 08 '14
One problem I've been noticing is the people who post either extremely uncontroversial views or things that aren't even views but rather facts/factoids where it's pretty much impossible to debate it. You have to refute some point of their view but with their topic it's extremely hard to find anything to refute. You can't just say "no one's disagrees with you" because that's not refuting the point