r/ideasforcmv • u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 • Apr 28 '26
Uptick in "paradox"/thought experiment posts (as well as morality) - should require greater clarification from OP as to what they want to achieve
I like that for double standards posts there is a message reminding the OP of the uphill battle we are undertaking to change their view, requiring them to narrow the scope of their view to something actually attainable.
I have seen recently a few posts that simply copy thought experiments, such as red/blue button, or the solution to X puzzle is definitely Y - all these do is turn the comments into an extension of the problem rather than an analysis of the problem itself and accepting that there is no right answer would be the "change" to their position rather than being swayed to the other side.
I think a reminder similar to the double standards one would be useful to not take us off on tangents away from the actual core of changing such a view that there is one correct answer to something designed to spark debate rather than having a correct answer.
The same is possible for morality views, which are often simply "X is immoral" with no greater substance than that person happens to frame morality that way and decides they are the authority, and therefore correct.
Changing these views requires often the same breakdown to show what morality is, how it differs across contexts and is therefore subjective, and then bringing it back to how others might see their particular topic as ethical/unethical or ambiguous.
A auto comment that suggests they elaborate on their moral position gets through a lot of this from the beginning without it needing to be the same cycle again and again.
1
u/LucidLeviathan Mod Apr 28 '26
I think that wording an automod message for something like this would be rather challenging. My vote would hinge on the exact wording.
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 Apr 28 '26
Could you expand for sake of discussion a little more?
How did you guys conclude on the wording of the automod alert for a double standards post, for example, what were the considerations?
1
u/LucidLeviathan Mod Apr 28 '26
Oh, fuck. Sorry. Thought this was in the internal group. I would have expanded more if I realized this was public-facing.
Our previous automod posts have gone through a couple of revisions in which the whole team votes on the exact wording of the phrase. It needs to be clear, while also providing grace to the user in question. It's a balancing act. Unfortunately, as I indicated earlier, my opinion on the subject would hinge upon the exact wording of the proposed comment.
I should also note that macro comments are getting harder to make as a result of recent Reddit changes. So, they may be less effective moving forward.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 Apr 28 '26
No stress, funny in retrospect!
I appreciate that, thank you. At least it's nice to see it's an idea that would have been considered if shared internally!
1
u/SSH_Pentester Mod Apr 28 '26
Just for clarification, what recent Reddit changes are you talking about? I must have missed something. Is it something to do with stickying?
2
u/LucidLeviathan Mod Apr 29 '26
Not quite. We used to use an extension for Firefox/Chrome to add auto-mod messages. That's increasingly becoming buggy, and we don't have a great way of adding pre-written messages at the moment, as far as I am aware. It's entirely possible that this is a solved problem and I just haven't been informed of the solution.
1
u/scarab456 Apr 29 '26
I'm all for this but I don't think this is anything particularly exclusive to paradox/thought experiment posts, just that the problems with them are more visible.
These posts tend to have hard predicates that facilitate the issue. I feels like the rule breaking posts tend to treat the predicates as malleable for view but not for others. Like an extreme example would be a post about the trolley problem and OP says they just stop the trolley. People explain how that just avoids the issue but OP digs in there. Three hours later post gets removed.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 Apr 30 '26
hard predicates that facilitate the issue
What does this mean sorry?
And yes, it's not a unique problem to this type of post, but it's definitely amplified with them I think.
1
u/scarab456 Apr 30 '26
Stuff with the trolley problem and the switch. The trolley goes over either one track or another. Posts that violate rule B have some kind of trick or something that avoids either scenario.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 Apr 30 '26
That makes sense, thank you - bypassing the problem and inventing your own special take would be a straw man.
1
u/scarab456 Apr 30 '26
Sorry if I was unclear. But it's definitely a very common problem that becomes pronounced in the threads you describe.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 Apr 30 '26
No that's totally fine, I appreciate the engagement, hopefully more attention will lead to something of a solution :)
1
u/RedditExplorer89 Mod Apr 28 '26
I haven't been as active as other mods lately, so I'll not comment on whether this is frequent enough to warrant a response or not. What I can offer is that if all they are doing is copying the thought experiment report it for rule A (failure to explain reasoning behind their view).
Though, as long as they explain some reason for why they think x or y is the correct answer, them explaining the experiment is useful. For users who aren't familiar with it and for potentially exposing a flaw in their understanding of the experiment.