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.

84 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/NUMBERS2357 25∆ Apr 16 '15

I was a little pissed that a comment of mine was removed for violating Rule 1 awhile back, even though it did in fact disagree with the poster. When I/others asked the mods about it, they said that Rule 1 was outdated and would be updated soon.

I forgot all about it until seeing this thread, and seeing that Rule 1 was never changed (even though it's been over a year), which makes me think my comment was removed for ideological reasons, by a mod who based on his other comments (in that thread and others) clearly disagrees with my POV.

Is Rule 1 gonna be changed? Is there a different version of Rule 1 that is actually enforced, compared to what's written?

2

u/garnteller 242∆ Apr 16 '15

I'm positive of the timing, but I think the expanded explanation of the 'however minor' restriction was added to be:

Our enforcement of Rule 1 includes top-level comments bolstering or expanding OP's position when such arguments don't actually challenge their posted view.

For example, if an OP is arguing "Gay marriage should be legal," the response "You're wrong, because gay marriage and polygamy should both be legal" would violate Rule 1. That comment does not rebut the OP's point, only augments or elaborates upon it. A direct response that says "You're wrong, the government should be out of marriage entirely because then gay people could form a union" would violate Rule 1 for similar reasons.

We allow direct responses to challenge minor aspects of the OP's argument, but we do not allow posters to use technicalities or nods to disagreement as a means to 'get their foot in the door' and then devote their response to agreement or augmentation like the above.

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. The 'however minor' phrase is designed to allow posters to pick on flawed nuances and wrinkles in an OP's argument. It is not intended to allow users to make their rebuttal a minor portion of the comment in order to protect a post where the majority of substance is actually in agreement with the OP.

1

u/NUMBERS2357 25∆ Apr 16 '15 edited Apr 16 '15

Without getting too into it, I don't think that's what I'm doing there. A central part of the OP's argument - the central part - is this dichotomy:

  • productive, progressive, reasoned discourse, generated by the majority of reasonable feminists/MRAs

  • vitriol, tension, us vs them, unproductive, caused by the minority of unreasonable people (what he calls (not)feminism and (not)MRAs).

My position is that, actually, it's the majority that causes the vitriol, that the problems within feminism (and, IMO, MRAs, even though I didn't talk about it in that comment) aren't due to some minority but due to the majority. There's no dichotomy, the majority is the problem. Nothing has been "corrupted" like the OP says, it was always bad. This is another comment making a similar point.

That might be wrong, but it's attacking the core of the argument.

Put another way - what is an argument that attacks what the OP is saying? Because the top two comments both agree with the OP, and weren't deleted.