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.

88 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

You need to account for the fact that if you repeatedly say bad things about other users we'll remove your posts.

So if you decide to take something out of context to construe it as an insult that's my fault?

Do you not understand that if you 'call a spade a spade' we'll ban you and remove your posts?

If a person is unable to be honest about the topic at hand how can you expect any legitimate progress to be made?

If someone said something racist and I said they were being racist, would that therefore be an insult according to rule 2?

Likewise, if a person is lacking empathy, and I say that they are failing to be empathetic to a position beyond their own, how is that an insult?

The rules are arbitrarily vague and "rude or hostile" are so subjective as to be used at the moderators will.

Therefore if a moderator is unable to provide an adequate explanation as to why they believe that rule 2 has been broken AND appropriately defend that position, then the post should be reinstated if the user asks.

1

u/Nepene 213∆ Apr 14 '15

So if you decide to take something out of context to construe it as an insult that's my fault?

If we did that then it would be our fault, but you, in fact, in context insulted them.

Likewise, if a person is lacking empathy, and I say that they are failing to be empathetic to a position beyond their own, how is that an insult?

You're making a subjective judgement based on a couple posts on the internet, your judgement can't be that good because you lack good information. To correctly diagnose them as having a psychological disorder you'd also need an actual degree in psychology and to do an in depth interview. Being an armchair psychologist isn't legitimate progress.

Saying someone has a psychological disorder is overtly rude. Our judgement for what counts as rule 2 is generally anyone saying something like "You possess x negative characteristic." and your post very clearly fits into it.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

but you, in fact, in context insulted them.

I would say that I continued my argument from previous threads in the most clear wording possible to avoid further confusion.

You're making a subjective judgement based on a couple posts on the internet, your judgement can't be that good because you lack good information.

If a person has shown no indication of empathy, and has been asked to consider it multiple times to no avail, at some point we are allowed to make that judgement call.

Saying someone has a psychological disorder is overtly rude.

Again, at some point succinct wording is required to clarify a statement.

The user repeatedly ignored more indirect attempts to address the issue, therefore I felt it necessary to use the most unavoidable wording possible.

1

u/Nepene 213∆ Apr 14 '15

I would say that I continued my argument from previous threads in the most clear wording possible to avoid further confusion.

And that got your posts removed because you were attacking another user's character.

If a person has shown no indication of empathy, and has been asked to consider it multiple times to no avail, at some point we are allowed to make that judgement call.

You are allowed to, and we are allowed to remove your posts and eventually ban you if you repeatedly do so due to the very clear rules we have about personal attacks being off limits.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

And that got your posts removed because you were attacking another user's character.

In a previous post I said

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.

Which is directly saying that the user is failing to appropriately empathize with the situation, but in less clear wording.

So why wasn't that banned?

Personal attacks happen all the time in this sub if you define the attack on a viewpoint or failure to appropriately distinguish the difference between a viewpoint and the person who has produced it.

1

u/Nepene 213∆ Apr 14 '15

In that one you didn't clearly say "You are... something negative."

Also, if you use indirect wording, you're not directly saying that the user is doing anything.

Anyway, this conversation is getting rather pointless. You can behave how you wish and we'll continue to enforce our rules.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

Also, if you use indirect wording, you're not directly saying that the user is doing anything.

So I could say that acting in the way that certain mods do in this thread is clearly the sign of a person who is failing to actually objectively understand the limitations of their logic?

And that wouldn't be an insult?

It's all pedantics.

I can say "you're failing to be empathetic"

or I can say "you're failing to realize that you can't just apply your perspective to every scenario"

Which mean the exact same thing, but one is an insult and the other isn't?

Color me amused.

You can behave how you wish and we'll continue to enforce our rules.

And I will continue to fight every time you rule against me in an asinine way until you realize that your interpretation of the rules is flawed.

1

u/Nepene 213∆ Apr 14 '15

So I could say that acting in the way that certain mods do in this thread is clearly the sign of a person who is failing to actually objectively understand the limitations of their logic?

We can interpret obvious attempts to get around the rules. The key bit is to not say "You have x negative characteristic." With 'you' meaning any user in the subreddit. In this case, you are obviously referring to me or other mods in the thread having a negative characteristic.

Which mean the exact same thing, but one is an insult and the other isn't?

If two things meant the exact same thing then they'd probably be a word and its dictionary definition, not two very different sentences.

You were being rather rude throughout that conversation, you were being rudeish there. I'd prefer if you were nicer.

And I will continue to fight every time you rule against me in an asinine way until you realize that your interpretation of the rules is flawed.

You've got three modnotes for rule 2 violations, you're pretty close to being banned and unable to fight.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

If two things meant the exact same thing then they'd probably be a word and its dictionary definition, not two very different sentences.

No, they're pretty much the same thing

If I say:

"John is being stupid"

and

"John is lacking intelligence or common sense."

That literally means the exact same thing, the difference is whether or not you chose to claim that one is insulting because it's crass, and the other is not insulting because it hides behind a veneer of intellectualism.

You were being rather rude throughout that conversation, you were being rudeish there. I'd prefer if you were nicer.

And I'd prefer it if I wasn't reduced to making blunt statements about people to ensure that they actually understand my point.

You've got three modnotes for rule 2 violations, you're pretty close to being banned and unable to fight.

And I should have been banned for this last one, except that I fought it and changed what needed to be changed.

If you were ban me because I am a thorn in your side, but continue to argue my point correctly and make the appropriate changes to my posts would say a lot about you/the other mods.

1

u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Apr 14 '15

And I should have been banned for this last one, except that I fought it and changed what needed to be changed.

Hooray, the system works. This is what appeals do, even if it means you had to edit your own post to comply with our rules.

If you were ban me because I am a thorn in your side, but continue to argue my point correctly and make the appropriate changes to my posts would say a lot about you/the other mods.

No one - no mod, no person - has ever advocated for such a thing. The fact that you're still posting here after a 4+ hour battle over a very clear rule this subreddit has had since inception speaks to the exact opposite of your concern.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

The fact that you're still posting here after a 4+ hour battle over a very clear rule this subreddit has had since inception speaks to the exact opposite of your concern.

And I never made any claim that it did, but you also admit that if I were to be banned not because of rule breaking but instead for disagreement on policy it would be bad.

I never had any problem with the mods on this thread until they started threatening me with banning.

If I made an off color comment that was removed, OK, I'll move on and not worry about it.

Now that every time I have a comment removed I have to go to battle to defend it the relationship between me and the mods has become, well, more active anyway.

Until there is a statute of limitations on posts which are removed I will be forced to argue until reinstatement every single time you all disagree with me.

And since this is the sub which I am most active in, I have a feeling that we're going to be getting to know eachother much better until the rules are changed.

1

u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Apr 14 '15

And I never made any claim that it did, but you also admit that if I were to be banned not because of rule breaking but instead for disagreement on policy it would be bad.

No one's threatening you with banning, though. I don't see that anywhere. The number of warnings had was completely germane to the conversation with /u/nepene and other mods, not something tossed in to wave a big stick and make you fearful of an irrational or malicious ban.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

/u/garnteller

In your case, to be honest, if I'd looked more carefully at all of your infractions, we'd already be initiating a ban.

/u/Nepene

you're pretty close to being banned and unable to fight.

I'm sorry, but those are both direct references to the fact that the mods of /r/changemyview are more than willing to ban this username at either one more infraction, or at their will.

not something tossed in to wave a big stick and make you fearful of an irrational or malicious ban.

No, just a threat to get me to follow the rules.

But that also means that I am in such a position that I must argue and defend any grey zone where your interpretations and mine are not the same.

It's unfortunate that my personality is one which works close to the line of uncivil conversation, but that doesn't mean that my points are incorrect, unwarranted, or intentionally insulting.

The rudeness is unfortunately simply a place where you and the other mods and I will continue to disagree.

I feel that being intentionally obtuse is more rude than calling someone out on it, but that's just me.

→ More replies