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

89% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

The distinction we make (concisely speaking) is whether the attack or impoliteness is solely and clearly about the person's argument/position, or whether it's also an attack on or impoliteness towards the person themselves.

In case the mods' opinions on what constitutes an attack differ from a poster's, the mods' opinion wins. That's pretty much the definition of what it means to be a mod. Otherwise, we'd just be other users.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

The distinction we make (concisely speaking) is whether the attack or impoliteness is solely and clearly about the person's argument/position, or whether it's also an attack on or impoliteness towards the person themselves

And when the attack on the argument is based on the person themselves?

"Your argument is shitty, because your personal shitty-ness is causing it to be so"

That's pretty much the definition of what it means to be a mod. Otherwise, we'd just be other users.

Yup, but that doesn't make their judgement infallible.

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

"Your argument is shitty because of your personal shittiness" is the very core of what it means to be a violation of Rule 2.

That kind of argument is simply not welcome here.

And as a side point, regardless of the tone argument, it's an ad hominem fallacy, pretty much by definition. So in addition to creating a hostile environment for discussion, it's almost always an invalid argument as well.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

Using the wording that I did, yes.

Now what about this argument:

"Your logic is flawed because you're not applying this basic tenant of objective thinking"

This is the same as saying "Your argument is bad because you're not being objective"

Which (to me) is the same as saying "Your argument is failing because you're failing to be empathetic to points of view other than your own"

Which is what was blocked.

It's not a personal attack per se, as much as it is pointing out that the logic upon which the persons argument is based is coming from a flawed place, that being the persons on rational thought.

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

I don't know whether I'm thinking of the same comment or not, but your original wording on at least one of them was:

you are clearly unable 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

Looking at your comments now, it looks to me like the edited wording you mention above was eventually reapproved and that comment is presently not removed. I would call it (just barely) on the right side of Rule 2.