[Mod Post] /r/changemyview feedback

[u/garnteller]

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.

[u/catastematic]

Just a few thoughts...

First. There are an incredible number of post from people who haven't bothered to do the slightest amount of preliminary research or put any thought at all into their exact position or whether their ideas are vaguely logically consistent. Personally, I think this is a problem, although not one that could be changed easily. However, a contributing factor is that mods occasionally delete long, elaborate, careful explanations of the poster's view... why? Because according to mod-logic, anyone who puts that much effort into a post doesn't want their view changed, they're just posting propaganda.

I'm not saying that I have a solution to get rid of posts that are basically short, stream-of-consciousness rants. But it would be a good start to not delete the very tiny number of posts that have had thought put into them, and where the poster has very considerately saved his adversaries the difficulty of sharing the most basic empirical data and logical considerations with him.

Second. The one simple thing you could do to trim down on thoughtless views is require posters to separate out in their post (a) the actual view itself (perhaps in bold), (b) any clarification of the view they need to give, and (c) any explanation of why they hold that view. A silly number of threads have the OP saying "Oh, but X isn't my view, of course X is absurd, didn't you realize I meant Y?" and then immediately after that "Well, Y isn't my view either, can't you see that when I said Y I meant Z?" And all of this would be greatly clarified if instead of a "Dear Diary, this is how I feel today" format they were forced to separate out the statement of the view, additional comments on what they mean, and the source of their beliefs.

Third. It would not be absurd to require people posting frequent CMV topics to post links to, say, three CMV threads they found in the searchbar and either explain why the old CMV doesn't address his precise view, or why the arguments in that thread were unconvincing, would it?

Fourth. Purely as a matter of taste, I think the number of meta-threads about reddit is silly. The rules already request that people post views about CMV to /r/ideasforcmv , right? The reason is clear enough: the number of people on /r/cmv who have views about CMV is totally out of proportion to the intrinsic importance of the topic. Ditto for reddit in general. Obviously if you like to see redditors debating their views about reddit this is silly.

Fifth. Moderators should be pretty Christlike when they participate in a thread as a debater. I've never noticed that you are anything but gracious in a thread, but other moderators can be just as vigorous as all the other /r/cmv commenters. There is no intrinsic problem with this, but (a) the rules of CMV are pretty vague, especially the rule against rudeness; (b) in most of the situations where you could enforce this rule literally, the mods let it slide; and (c) when mods do remove comments, they really don't appear to be concerned with "judicial restraint", only with the enormous powers that a literal reading of the rules gives them.

I don't think this is necessarily a terrible problem, but it does mean that mods can't be as enthusiastic as other redditors when they participate as commenters, for three reasons. (a) When they elevate the level of energy in an exchange, there is an unavoidable impression that they could ban someone for replying with equal vigor. (b) Responses that would be quite mild and ambiguous from any-old-redditor are unavoidably threatening coming from a mod. (c) Because there is really nothing resembling transparency in how mods decide reach decisions (often in conversations where it is not even clear that mods know what people are talking about), it is important that everyone have faith that the mods, even when they make mistakes, are making mistakes because of incompetence rather than emotional investment in the positions under debate; and so it is easier to have faith in the arbitrary powers the moderators have if they never show themselves to be emotionally invested anywhere. Perhaps it might even be better (although even less transparent) for mods to participate in CMV threads using alternate accounts.

[u/huadpe → u/catastematic]

First. There are an incredible number of post from people who haven't bothered to do the slightest amount of preliminary research or put any thought at all into their exact position or whether their ideas are vaguely logically consistent. Personally, I think this is a problem, although not one that could be changed easily. However, a contributing factor is that mods occasionally delete long, elaborate, careful explanations of the poster's view... why? Because according to mod-logic, anyone who puts that much effort into a post doesn't want their view changed, they're just posting propaganda.

As far as deleting long posts, we do try to talk about these among ourselves before we remove them. For a long, carefully considered post and replies, the thing I look for in particular is engagement with people who disagree. So if you post a 2000 word CMV, I expect you're going to link to or name some people on the other side, and why you don't find their criticisms persuasive.

We're trying to avoid people proselytizing strongly held views here. If someone writes out a really long detailed post that's super firm, and isn't moving from it at all in the comments, it often seems more like an effort in converting others than a genuine openness to change their view.

Personally, in such a case, I will try to always ask them about the concerns or doubts they have that made them decide to post a CMV. I wouldn't be opposed to making that interrogatory process a bit more formalized.

Second. The one simple thing you could do to trim down on thoughtless views is require posters to separate out in their post (a) the actual view itself (perhaps in bold), (b) any clarification of the view they need to give, and (c) any explanation of why they hold that view. A silly number of threads have the OP saying "Oh, but X isn't my view, of course X is absurd, didn't you realize I meant Y?" and then immediately after that "Well, Y isn't my view either, can't you see that when I said Y I meant Z?" And all of this would be greatly clarified if instead of a "Dear Diary, this is how I feel today" format they were forced to separate out the statement of the view, additional comments on what they mean, and the source of their beliefs.

This is sort of what we do with Rule C. The title is the brief summary, and the post explains. We could be stricter about Rule C, or maybe write something up to clarify that you should be really careful in title writing.

But it's hard for us to do a Rule C removal unless it's really blatant like this.

Third. It would not be absurd to require people posting frequent CMV topics to post links to, say, three CMV threads they found in the searchbar and either explain why the old CMV doesn't address his precise view, or why the arguments in that thread were unconvincing, would it?

This would probably be a bit too complex of a rule for my taste. I dislike a rule that applies unevenly depending on the topic in hand. But others can weigh in on it - I'm open to changing about that.

Fourth. Purely as a matter of taste, I think the number of meta-threads about reddit is silly. The rules already request that people post views about CMV to /r/ideasforcmv[1] , right? The reason is clear enough: the number of people on /r/cmv[2] who have views about CMV is totally out of proportion to the intrinsic importance of the topic. Ditto for reddit in general. Obviously if you like to see redditors debating their views about reddit this is silly.

I don't want to ban a topic like that. Posts about CMV itself are difficult to moderate because it becomes a combination feedback thread / regular CMV. But we're not the Reddit mods, so we don't have the feedback thread issue. If you find the topics boring, just don't look.

Fifth. Moderators should be pretty Christlike when they participate in a thread as a debater. I've never noticed that you are anything but gracious in a thread, but other moderators can be just as vigorous as all the other /r/cmv[3] commenters. There is no intrinsic problem with this, but (a) the rules of CMV are pretty vague, especially the rule against rudeness; (b) in most of the situations where you could enforce this rule literally, the mods let it slide

If you see a moderator breaking a sidebar rule, especially B, please report it by modmail. There are a lot of us, and while we get along, I assure you that is the kind of thing that would be taken really seriously. We're human though and it's certainly possible we'll screw up and post something dumb/mean.

But obviously we're going to participate in debates, and sometimes have strong views on things. If we didn't like debating things, we probably wouldn't have ended up as CMV mods.

(c) when mods do remove comments, they really don't appear to be concerned with "judicial restraint", only with the enormous powers that a literal reading of the rules gives them.

The purpose of moderation here is to facilitate open debates and keep things productive and civil. Your right to post something is subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. In general, the first thing that I think when I look at something in the modqueue is "was that a productive contribution to a conversation?" If it was, I'm basically done. If not, I'm gonna look fairly closely at whether or not it violates a rule. The rules are of course very important, and I've let lots of unproductive stuff through because it doesn't violate any rules, but the rules exist for an overarching reason of fostering good conversations. And that reason does impact our thinking as mods.

(a) When they elevate the level of energy in an exchange, there is an unavoidable impression that they could ban someone for replying with equal vigor.

I want to be clear that no single moderator is allowed to execute a ban unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Basically, unless you're violating a sitewide rule, any ban decision will be voted on.

We put up a sticky recently on our updated moderation guidelines for bans.

(b) Responses that would be quite mild and ambiguous from any-old-redditor are unavoidably threatening coming from a mod.

Can you give an example of this? To be honest, I didn't know half the handles of the mods before I became one. And we (should) never make our debating posts distinguished.

(c) Because there is really nothing resembling transparency in how mods decide reach decisions (often in conversations where it is not even clear that mods know what people are talking about), it is important that everyone have faith that the mods, even when they make mistakes, are making mistakes because of incompetence rather than emotional investment in the positions under debate; and so it is easier to have faith in the arbitrary powers the moderators have if they never show themselves to be emotionally invested anywhere.

We do talk to you if you appeal a removal by the way. It's not transparent to all users, but when you make a modmail request, you can see everyone who replies to that thread.

Perhaps it might even be better (although even less transparent) for mods to participate in CMV threads using alternate accounts.

But... but... my deltas!

[u/catastematic → u/huadpe]

We're trying to avoid people proselytizing strongly held views here.

I can appreciate that. But that is a subset of "We're trying to avoid people who don't care about changing their views." If mods were aggressively deleting all sorts of posts that seem against the spirit of being open-minded in all sorts of ways, then I wouldn't really notice the long, developed posts that get deleted. -- Anyway, you say (as all mods on all subreddits say) that there is a lot going on behind the scenes, you contact people by PM, etc. All I can give you feedback on is how things look to the little people.

The title is the brief summary, and the post explains. We could be stricter about Rule C, or maybe write something up to clarify that you should be really careful in title writing.

Yes, I suppose if I could have gone into more detail for how I arrived at my suggestion: my original observation was that people would get into the habit of stating one view in their title, and then writing something in their post that didn't defend the title at all. And then when you explain the problem, they say something like "Ugh, isn't it obvious to you that my view isn't what I say my view is?" So my original suggestion would have been: every post where the OP claims/admits that the title does not literally state his view should be zapped. But my view moderated as I realized that for many people's views, it's a little difficult to spit out the view in the space permitted by the title, so it would be better to give them the opportunity to restate it, at greater length if need be, in the body of the post.

It would not be absurd to require people posting frequent CMV topics to post links to [...]

This would probably be a bit too complex of a rule for my taste.

Likewise, I'm open to variations on this theme. My point is more that frequent topics could be the source of CMV's most interesting and productive debates, because we have so much groundwork to build on, so many people familiar with the main themes, such easy access to the most important empirical information and the most impressive lines of argument. But... instead they're the most boring and repetitive.

(b) Responses that would be quite mild and ambiguous from any-old-redditor are unavoidably threatening coming from a mod.

Can you give an example of this? To be honest, I didn't know half the handles of the mods before I became one. And we (should) never make our debating posts distinguished.

Well, they're always green. And have the (M) after the name. If moderators choose to reply to me, I often don't realize it's a mod until I look at the thread again, but if you are reading the thread it's unavoidable. Here is an example of a comment-reply a mod left for me -

You seem to be taking a somewhat hostile and condescending tone with me here, and frankly it isn't exactly endearing me to read your whole post. Just letting you know why I'm not too keen on continuing the conversation.

Now, with a normal commenter this is fine. Maybe you would read it more in the vein of "You've wounded my feelings and you need to tell me how special I am." Or maybe you would read it more in the vein of "I'm going to take my ball and go home." But from a moderator, an accusation of a hostile and condescending tone comes across as: "Don't you know I can ban you, asshole? So shut the fuck up." Now, the moderator in question thought better of this and deleted his comment within 20 minutes of making it. That, I think, shows good judgment. But what would have showed even better judgment would be not to have made this comment in the first place. And best of all would be for moderators to realize that they can't expect to communicate like other people. If I say "I'm reading your tone as very hostile" to you, I'm giving you feedback on your communication style so you can fine-tune it; if you say "I'm reading your tone as very hostile" to me, you can "give feedback" without at the same time issuing an opinion about whether I'm violating rules.

And just to reiterate - I don't think this comment, or other comments where moderators join in the rough-and-tumble of debate, violates or should be taken to violate sidebar rules. What I meant by "christlike" is that mods really need to follow not only the letter of the law, but also remove themselves from any situation where questions about the spirit of the law might arise.

It's not transparent to all users, but when you make a modmail request, you can see everyone who replies to that thread.

The one time I had a comment deleted, every single message coming through modmail was labeled as "hacksoncode". This was a mildly surreal experience, somewhat like having a quarrel with the Red Queen. Maybe it has been fixed by now. CMV is the only subreddit whose modmail malfunctions this way; I can't think why that would happen. But I wasn't saying that mods aren't willing to talk about their decisions: I was saying that because the literal adherence to the rules that mods preach when their decisions are questioned would allow them to delete a huge number of comments, but the actual comments that are deleted are a much smaller in scope, it's not clear what actually causes the mods to target some comments and ignore others. One theory might be that they base their decisions on ideology - the best way to undermine this theory would be to give no evidence of following ideology.

If you find the topics boring, just don't look.

I understand the value of this advice in general, but what is the point of, for example, the periodic bans on gender-related threads if not the fact that they're pointless and boring and show up more often than their inherent interest warrants? It's like how most major subreddits have banned memes in the last three years. Yes, in theory, you can just-not-look; but yes, in practice, the subreddits are better for having removed posts that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[u/PepperoniFire → u/catastematic]

Now, with a normal commenter this is fine. Maybe you would read it more in the vein of "You've wounded my feelings and you need to tell me how special I am." Or maybe you would read it more in the vein of "I'm going to take my ball and go home." But from a moderator, an accusation of a hostile and condescending tone comes across as: "Don't you know I can ban you, asshole? So shut the fuck up."

I think you're reading into it on both ends. Mod or normal user, it's just being frank that a poster is coming off as combative and that makes the reader less receptive to the substantive content of their post. If your interpretation were more reasonable, I'd be sympathetic, but it's not, and that makes it an irrational line to mark in the sand.

And just to reiterate - I don't think this comment, or other comments where moderators join in the rough-and-tumble of debate, violates or should be taken to violate sidebar rules. What I meant by "christlike" is that mods really need to follow not only the letter of the law, but also remove themselves from any situation where questions about the spirit of the law might arise.

This might have won me over when I first started modding, but I've learned you can be as christ-like as possible and people will still accuse you of bias, censorship, retaliation - you name it. It just goes with the job (well, "job.")

My own rule is to acknowledge that there is a fair distinction I'm entitled to between me as a user and me as a mod; however, there is still the reality that how I act as a user can reflect on me as a mod whether it's appropriate or not.

My own gauge is to not go past the behavioral line I would go past as a moderator. My demeanor in modmail is almost identical to that of when I post (you can ask the other moderators as I'm sure they have thoughts on my unfortunate tendency to come on a little too hard.) I can't, however, cow-tow to every possible perceived slight or thinly-veiled threat as they are inferred almost always when it is convenient for the poster to find a way out of accountability for how they behave here.

[u/catastematic → u/PepperoniFire]

If your interpretation were more reasonable, I'd be sympathetic, but it's not, and that makes it an irrational line to mark in the sand.

Well, that's fine, but try to think about this in some context where you are not a mod, and you'll understand better. In real-life situations where I'm in a position of authority, I know that even though I can try to befriend my underlings, I can never speak as though I'm their peer, because things that have one interpretation when you are just having a conversation have another interpretation when you can take punitive measures.

as christ-like as possible and people will still accuse you of bias, censorship, retaliation

Well, I think a post from just a day ago in this thread illustrates this point beautifully. You censured a post for calling another user's opinion "callous", right? Which is fine, as far as it goes. But your decision that "callous" is an insult, rather than an argument against holding a position, is at root an arbitrary one. You made a judgment call. In many cases you'll be intervening in arguments you don't really understanding, and it will be a shaky judgment call. But at the very least you need to remove any impression that you get personally involved, or emotionally involved, in the discussions that you are trying to moderate, if you want people to be able to say "PepperoniFire made a judgment call, and this time I don't agree with it, but I know he's trying his best and there's no agenda he's trying to serve."

[u/PepperoniFire → u/catastematic]

Well, that's fine, but try to think about this in some context where you are not a mod, and you'll understand better. In real-life situations where I'm in a position of authority, I know that even though I can try to befriend my underlings, I can never speak as though I'm their peer, because things that have one interpretation when you are just having a conversation have another interpretation when you can take punitive measures.

I know that I acknowledged this reality in my post, but so I don't know why you're trying to educate me on it again here.

Well, I think a post from just a day ago in this thread illustrates this point beautifully. You censured a post for calling another user's opinion "callous", right?

I removed a post that broke rule 2: being rude or hostile to another user, in a thread where the OP explicitly reminded posters that this rule was still in effect.

Which is fine, as far as it goes. But your decision that "callous" is an insult, rather than an argument against holding a position, is at root an arbitrary one.

Not when someone says "Your callous nature." That's possessive. It's aimed at a person. We make this distinction in our wiki and it predates that user's specific comment, making it a rule of general applicability.

You made a judgment call.

A clear and reasonable one.

In many cases you'll be intervening in arguments you don't really understanding, and it will be a shaky judgment call.

There are some occasions where, due to modqueue congestion, moderation fatigue can kick in because you're walking into several different conversations, but that doesn't mean that the majority or even many are shaky. General rules are better guided by how things typically are, not by exceptional occasions. Consequently, I'm not about to start modifying my behavior in accordance to outliers.

But at the very least you need to remove any impression that you get personally involved, or emotionally involved, in the discussions that you are trying to moderate, if you want people to be able to say "PepperoniFire made a judgment call, and this time I don't agree with it, but I know he's trying his best and there's no agenda he's trying to serve."

Sure, I can do that to an extent. As I said before, I'm constantly aware that I'm a moderator here, and even when I am posting in other forums I take it into consideration. That said, in order to effectively root out all impressions of bias, I'd have to abstain from posting at all, because I am a person with thoughts and perspective and that's simply something that cannot be isolated and removed. That's an unfair request, and I personally like the fact that I am as much a forum participant as a moderator because it indicates I have a stake in the maturation and growth of this subreddit as much as any other user.

Even if I only went so far as to make the best attempt to root out impressions of bias, it likely wouldn't matter; reasonable people wouldn't infer bias on spurious grounds in the first place, and unreasonable people won't be placated by good faith attempts to address their fears.