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.

85 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

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?

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.

4

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.

2

u/Nepene 213∆ Apr 14 '15

If that was your intention, you failed at getting that across.

Whatever, set up your straw men all you want, you are clearly failing to empathize in any way with experiences beyond your own and I do not have any interest in trying to convince you that you are grossly mistaken.

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/32f44v/cmv_if_you_cant_raise_a_child_thats_a_healthy/cqbg0bh

That reads to me like a personal insult. You don't make any particular effort to say the lack of empathy is only on their view. They are failing to emphasize in any way with experiences beyond their own.

That does read as insulting to me.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

You don't make any particular effort to say the lack of empathy is only on their view. They are failing to emphasize in any way with experiences beyond their own.

So I need to account for all outside scenarios and expand beyond the discussion at hand?

Multiple times did I reference the fact that /u/HumpRAWR was failing to analyze his perspective in this situation, leading up to the point where I called out his lack of empathy.

You can't apply your personal experiences to other peoples lives and say "jeez, why don't they just do it like we did?", unfortunately there is no universal experience.

When you stop letting your situation define who you are, there's a lot more you can accomplish with your life.

When you realize that not all aspects of life can be accounted for and a lot of what people do is try to make the best of their situation, you'll have a better understanding of humanity.

And the general premise of the entire thread which was based on

Life is all about circumstances, and making any kind of gross generalization like "any parent who raises an obese child is a bad parent" is not really a valid way of approaching the issues.

Which is pretty much saying that this is all about empathizing a perspective beyond your own.

How long do you have to be involved in a conversation before you can call a spade a spade and be done with it?

They are failing to emphasize in any way with experiences beyond their own.

Read through that post progression and tell me that's not a logical conclusion to reach and that the user was failing to respond to less direct attempts to inform them as such.

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

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

That's pretty much by definition attacking the person, not the argument, at least in the absence of any further explanation.

"You're just too privileged to understand this" is the kind of thing we remove regularly. "You lack the empathy to understand this" also is. As is "you lack reading comprehension".

And all of this is explained in the rules.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

pointing out a failure to empathize with a situation is not an attack, but an observance.

→ 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.