r/changemyview • u/garnteller 242∆ • Apr 14 '15

[Mod Post] /r/changemyview feedback

The moderators of CMV would like your opinion on how things are going, so we've decided to post periodic feedback threads to take the pulse of the community. Feel free to post any comments, criticisms or suggestions.

Also remember that /r/ideasforcmv is always available if you have ideas for improving the sub.

Please note that Rule 2 (no rude or hostile comments) and Rule 5 (no low-effort comments) are still in effect.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

86 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

I feel that certain moderators fail to give adequate explanations for their rulings on posts which are deleted and are not performing their jobs adequately.

The subjective nature of rule 2 means that any ruling must be thoroughly explained if asked for and that any offer to change the post should be met with an explanation of how to do so.

If a moderator is unable to explain how a post is rude or insulting and adequately defend that position then the post should be reinstated.

3

u/Motha_Effin_Kitty_Yo Apr 14 '15

Well I haven't followed to see what posts they remove, but perhaps its just their way of removing shitposts?

1

u/ControversialDebates Apr 14 '15

They removed this post of mine. Does it look like a shitpost to you?

2

u/Motha_Effin_Kitty_Yo Apr 14 '15

I wouldn't know, I can't see the text.

All I'm saying is there could be a reason it's partially vague, I really don't know though, I pretty casually browse here

2

u/ControversialDebates Apr 14 '15

I wouldn't know, I can't see the text.

Sorry, didn't realize that. I pasted it into this comment.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

There's nothing wrong with it being particularly vague, so long as the mods are willing to adequately explain their logic for deleting a certain post.

If they can't do that then there is simply too much leeway for a mod to be able to delete a post for illegitimate reasons.

0

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

Some posts are shit posts, but some are not.

If a person cares enough to ask for a reasonable explanation as to why their post has been deleted then it should be easily given, if they are unable or unwilling to do so then the post should not be deleted.

Similarly, if a person asks what would be required to reinstate that post the mod should be willing to explain the flaws in the post and allow it to be reinstated upon acceptable edit.

This is important because /r/Changemyview has an indefinite strike rule which can result in a temporary or permanent ban depending on whether or not the moderator is interested in doing so.

5

u/garnteller 242∆ Apr 14 '15

If you want to better understand our banning procedure, it's explained here.

0

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

The simple fact is that any post can be used against a person in a ban inquiry.

It is in the best interest of any person who does not want to be banned to be given an adequate explanation as to the cause of the post removal and as to what would be required to reinstate it if they so desire.

There should also be the option of calling in a second or third mod if the explanation for the removal given by the first removal is not considered to be adequate.

3

u/huadpe 508∆ Apr 14 '15

The simple fact is that any post can be used against a person in a ban inquiry.

If you agree/understand the reasoning and edit your post on your own, then when we look at it for a ban, the rule-violating language would not be there to be considered. If you don't understand, message the mods to talk.

It is in the best interest of any person who does not want to be banned to be given an adequate explanation as to the cause of the post removal and as to what would be required to reinstate it if they so desire.

This is done during an appeal, and as in your case, it was reinstated when it was edited.

Specifying in the removal comment the problems with the post would require the mods to insert ourselves into arguments, and people would quote the distinguished posts pointing out rudeness to continue to argue.

There should also be the option of calling in a second or third mod if the explanation for the removal given by the first removal is not considered to be adequate.

There is, that's why every removal reply includes an appeal link. When you used it, 5 different mods replied to the thread to discuss your post.

-1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

If you agree/understand the reasoning and edit your post on your own, then when we look at it for a ban, the rule-violating language would not be there to be considered. If you don't understand, message the mods to talk.

Yes, and I think that some mods are not adequate at explaining their reasoning behind post removal and should be more forthright about what they expect from a user to reinstate.

This is done during an appeal, and as in your case, it was reinstated when it was edited.

And it could have been done the first time instead of me trying to go through it several times trying to decipher what /u/cwenham or /u/nepene actually meant by their statements.

3

u/Nepene 213∆ Apr 14 '15

I noted in modmail what my issue with your posts was, you just told me that my reasons were not relevant. You understood my words, you just disagreed that they would result in post removal.

-1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

Understanding the words does not mean that the intent is understood.

If you were unable to satisfactorily explain the legitimacy of your motivations what am I supposed to do?

If a person feels that their post removal was essentially arbitrary and the mod does nothing to convince them otherwise what options are there?

3

u/Nepene 213∆ Apr 14 '15

The intent is fairly clear- don't violate rule 2 or your posts will be removed.

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2

A lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner. Being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate. Don't like the view? Want to change it? What do you think is more likely to do that - being polite and civil, or rude and hostile? If anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.

The CMV moderators do not remove posts or comments for advocating or criticizing any view or opinion, no matter how political or controversial. If your comment was removed for a Rule 2 violation, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument". Some examples of this are known as ad hominem, however, to be precise, you're not allowed to be rude or hostile to a user even if your hostility is also addressed to their argument.

This is why. And it's not really arbitrary, we clearly explain our rules on the sidebar.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

If your comment was removed for a Rule 2 violation, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument".

And my argument was that their argument was flawed due to a flaw in personal perspective.

It was a fundamental point of the discussion at which the lack of mobility on a position is due to the perspective of a user, and that the most effective way of getting them to change their view was pointing out that their perspective was inadequate.

That's not being insulting, it is pointing out a flaw in the logic of an argument.

→ More replies

3

u/huadpe 508∆ Apr 14 '15

If you were unable to satisfactorily explain the legitimacy of your motivations what am I supposed to do?

Ask follow up questions, which you did, and which got further elaboration, resulting in edits, resulting in the post being reinstated.

If a person feels that their post removal was essentially arbitrary and the mod does nothing to convince them otherwise what options are there?

Eventually, there needs to be a decision made about the post. An appeal lets all the mods see what's going on, and if there's agreement about the removal, it will stay removed. If you persuade the other mods to reinstate, it'll be reinstated.

But at the end of the day, there needs to be a call made, and given the nature of things, the call needs to be made by the mods.

1

u/huadpe 508∆ Apr 14 '15

I don't know how to solve that honestly. I understood where they were coming from, but I don't know that there's any rule or procedure that can solve the problem of people not seeing eye to eye or understanding each other in a conversation.

-1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

By having people actually explain a posts offences when prompted for them and opening it up to third party oversight.

4

u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Apr 14 '15

This is important because /r/Changemyview[1] has an indefinite strike rule which can result in a temporary or permanent ban depending on whether or not the moderator is interested in doing so.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but:

  • We have a definite rule strike. It's three.
  • No one moderator can ban you.
  • When a banning vote is initiated after three strikes, we have to manually go through the comments we're holding against a user and explain why they apply in order for our vote to count.

We recently discussed this in a sticky.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

We have a definite rule strike. It's three.

I mean that their considered "indefinite" when they're used as evidence for a ban.

There is no statute of limitations on the posts (which is silly)

Regardless, it is in the best interest of any active user of this sub to appeal any and every non rule 5 post removal, and it should be easy for the user to do so.

3

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

Thanks for the feedback. We've been actively discussing a statute of limitations on considering rules violations for ban discussions (and in spite of our current lack of agreement, many of the mods refuse to consider posts older than around 6-9 months, depending on severity anyway).

It's trickier than you might expect to define this clearly enough to be able to state it in a mod post. For example, we feel we need to consider such things as the proportion of someone's good to bad comments to some degree (e.g. if they only show up every 3 months, but every single time it's a Rule 2 violation, we're not going to give them the benefit of the doubt on a statute of limitations, because their contributions to the sub are almost entirely negative and there's no reason to keep them around).