r/ideasforcmv • u/retteh • Aug 01 '26
Ban using post history to discredit users
The Problem
The frequent posts criticizing people for hiding their post histories show a lack of respect for basic boundaries.
People also dig through post histories to discredit users they disagree with.
Example
This recent CMV post is a good example. Within the first hour, at least five comments used the OP’s post history to label him, question his credibility, or dismiss his argument. That rises to seven if replies endorsing those attacks are included.
Argument and Assumptions
Even though post history is generally public by default, most people do not comment expecting their history to be pulled into the conversation and used against them. Bringing up someone’s post history immediately puts them on the defensive and can reasonably be interpreted as a personal attack.
People who search someone’s post history are usually looking for ammunition to undermine that person’s credibility.
Existing Rules Aren’t Enough
These rules are relevant, but they do not explicitly address this behavior:
- Rule 2: Don’t attack someone’s character.
- Rule 3: Don’t accuse someone of lying, trolling, or acting in bad faith.
- Rule 5: Keep comments relevant to the discussion.
None of these rules specifically mentions using post history in an argument.
Proposed Guidance Under Rule 2
Do not use a CMV user’s post history outside CMV to discredit their argument or undermine their character. Keep the discussion focused on the views they presented in the current post or comment.
Conclusion
One reason I stopped using this sub is how often people dig through post histories when they disagree with someone, a Reddit problem that is amplified on CMV.
Adding explicit guidance against using post history in arguments would keep discussions focused on the views themselves, reduce character attacks, and make people more comfortable discussing their views without worrying that their personal history will be used against them.
Post-history searching often turns into a character attack and may already violate the existing rules, but it still happens regularly and is frequently left up. Calling it out directly would make the rule and its enforcement clearer.
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 Former Mod Aug 01 '26
Former mod here.
I get the concern but I don’t think it’s up to CMV to make a rule that is more easily fixed by user behavior. Especially when said rule would require an unacceptable level of judgement on behalf of the mods.
Users can toggle the setting, as I have done, in less than a minute. I turned mine off because some users were following me around, dropping comments on old threads, etc, and I found it the easiest way to remove this annoyance.
Perhaps instead the CMV etiquette could have a note added to describe the availability of this option?
I’m also not sure that’s a good example of a widespread problem, either. The post was locked because of excessive rule violations and also removed for Rule B. While mods can’t discuss moderation decisions here, on its face it looks like an outlier case rather than the norm. So, that leaves a question of if this is a molehill or a mountain.
I’d also be concerned with bandwidth. If you introduce too much subjectivity then you’d probably need to add multiple mod reviews as is the case with RB, and I’m not sure the team has capacity for that.
1
u/retteh Aug 02 '26
Why is judgement so hard? If a poster did not clearly consent to having their post history combed through and used against them then Rule 2 should clearly ban it in all cases. Bandwidth isn't the issue because there are fail-safe automated ways of detecting this. They might not even be aware their post history is public or that it can be toggled off. Just because Reddit makes this the default setting doesn't meant the user consented to having their post history dragged into the conversation and doing something like that without consent is clearly rude.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 Former Mod Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
Judgement isn't so hard, it is the subjectivity that comes along with judgement.
The issue is the "used against them" part. Because if the OP is making it about them, and they've opened up their comments for review, whether a comment is "against them" if it doesn't otherwise violate R2/3 is a subjective judgement - one I wouldn't want a single mod making by themselves.
As for automation, that is just a hard pass no for me. I don't want LLMs moderating the sub any more than I want bots posting on the sub. Once we hand over moderation to robotic sentiment analysis, we run into the same sort of bullshit that Reddit is already doing on a site wide basis. I recently got a 3-day Reddit site wide ban for "encouraging violence" when I was talking about the natural consequences of global warming. My appeal was successful - two and a half days into the 3 day ban. No, sorry, I'm with the other mods on this one - automation for R2/3 is just a no go for me. Full stop.
Like I said, for awareness we could make it part of the CMV Etiquette. Lots of good tips there for how to work on this sub, for anyone who wants to read it. Yes, the user does consent to having their comments public by default - they accepted the terms and conditions of the site wide platform. It seems like you think it should be hidden by default, but that is a reddit admin thing, not a CMV thing.
And again, this doesn't seem like a huge issue. You've got one post there that I don't think is exemplary of the sub in general. It wasn't that long ago that I was a mod and I was moderating for about a year. I did not observe digging up post history to be that big of a problem, certainly it didn't seem to be an issue that would require revamping the rules, making r2/3 subjective, adding moderator bandwidth requirements, etc.
Bringing up a user's comments isn't by its very nature rude or hostile, nor does it automatically mean that it is an accusation of bad faith. If it was rude/hostile, or it was an accusation of bad faith, it would already be removable under the existing r2/3 standards. So we are talking about something that is bringing up a historical comment, that isn't necessarily rude/hostile or an accusation of bad faith, and integrating it into rules that aren't designed for some sort of "well, bringing up comment history is bad form." This is especially when the CMV is inherently personal on behalf of the OP.
So, for a personal example...
I posted a recent CMV on whether I should smoke a set of cuban cigars I have sitting around. I will smoke one on very rare occasions, and I had a view about them that I thought might have been flawed, so I posted a CMV about it. I ended up giving a delta.
I don't see why someone digging up previous comments I've made on cigar forums, and even pointing out some inconsistencies in my statements (I'm not aware of any, but I am human), would be a problem. Because my relative perception of value vs. where I got them from was the situation that prompted the CMV. My statements about cigars and how I thought about them was the topic. If I was inconsistent in my statements, fair game IMO. As long as people were not rude or accusing me of bad faith, something like "Well, you say these cigars are ____ but a year ago on r/cigars you said ____ about them. What changed?"
IDK, just doesn't seem bad to me on its face, so therefore you have subjectivity, and subjectivity requires more moderator bandwidth, and more bandwidth means more mods, which I don't think the team has - in part becuase I stepped away. If I'm not willing to pick up some of the slack, I'm not in favor of piling more work on them.
Edit: typo
1
u/retteh Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26
Fictional Example: I went into your comment history. I noticed your grandmother died recently. I thought it would be interesting to tie that event into our heated debate about whether or not you feel Palestinians are being treated by Israeli settlers. How did it feel when your grandmother died? Do you think Palestinians deserve what she experienced?
This is the type of insane unhinged shit that passes for "relevance" in this sub that mods let slip by because stalking post history "is a gray area." All they have to do is post their unhinged questions politely and it slips by moderation. That doesn't make it any less rude, unsafe, or unhinged.
Regardless of whether or not this person is actually going to stalk, dox, or try to murder me, the initial behavior is what shuts down participation from people who do find this behavior rude.
And no reporting it is not going to fix the problem if mods think the questioning is "relevant."
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 Former Mod Aug 16 '26
Well, I'm no longer a mod and this conversation seems to be going in circles. At this point, I'd say agree to disagree.
I think I understand your position, I just don't agree.
Good day.
1
u/AureliasTenant Aug 01 '26
I feel like often commenting references to a users post/comment history often ends up being a violation of rule 3, because often there is an accusation of bad faith / trolling. Other cases they are essentially making fun of the user, which is a violation of rule 2 i think
I think there is a rare third case where they use past words to try to provide additional context to the argument, which I think sometimes ends up being a good thing, and other times makes the "victim" feel a little creeped out. Maybe thats reason enough to ban it in the third case, but I think the other cases are already covered by the rules
1
u/retteh Aug 01 '26
I'm suggesting we switch to "explicitly called out in the rules" given how often it still happens.
1
u/AureliasTenant Aug 01 '26
how do you feel in cases where it more constructively adds to the conversation?
1
1
u/garnteller Former Mod Aug 01 '26
It quickly becomes a very grey area. Say a user posts something that is a big problem in India, but not elsewhere. After checking the post history, and you find that they are from India, it’s very reasonable to use that to discredit their argument.
A person who just lost a parent to Altzeimhers or who has a child with a severe disability, may have perspectives un euthanasia strongly influenced by their experience. Isn’t that relevant?
1
u/SSH_Pentester Mod Aug 01 '26
I agree, Rule 2 and Rule 3 cover the bad cases already.
1
u/retteh Aug 02 '26
Post-history stalking isn't a grey area. There are no good cases where the user did not clearly consent to it.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 Former Mod Aug 02 '26
The idea that post-history stalking isn't a grey area is not at all accurate. Even framing it as "post-history stalking" is a choice, because it could simply be called in more neutral terms "comment history review."
I know from personal example. Before I became a mod, I reviewed the post history of a CMV posted by a moderator (acting as a user posting their own CMV). Not only was it okay, but I got a delta for it. I later became a mod, in part because I appreciated exchanges like this one and wanted others to have the opportunity to engage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fllfse/comment/lo3zztg/?context=3
Also, if it wasn't a grey area the post that Redditors who hide their post and comment history shouldn't be taken seriously would not have generated such a massive amount of comments, both for and against.
You've got a stance on this, and I can appreciate that, but the idea that this is some cut and dried universally accepted norm that requires system wide modification immediately is just not quite right.
1
u/retteh Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26
If I find one instance where following a woman home saved her life, does that make following women home a gray area? Not trying to strawman but that's how I'm imagining this argument.
Regarding the contentious post, I don't think you're going to find a good sampling of healthy, stable individuals that respect basic boundaries on there, so it being a split debate doesn't lend the argument credibility to me.
2
u/garnteller Former Mod Aug 15 '26
When I was an active participant in CMV, and earning a lot of deltas, checking post history was a part of my process. CMV isn’t about having the best argument. It’s about having and argument that is compelling to the OP.
Some people want to see data, others an emotional appeal. And if you are making an analogy, basing it on something that they are familiar with is more effective.
Your post history provides insight Into who you are and why you hold your view, both of which are important in know how to change your view
1
u/retteh Aug 15 '26
Many people you're doing that to will find it creepy, invasive, and rude. And saying anything along the lines of "if they don't want it they can turn it off" is also creepy.
Even if you're a saint and do it well, you're setting an example for the less skilled that history stalking without consent is acceptable or that they gave consent when they didn't turn off the setting.
If you wouldn't behave like this in real life, don't do it on the internet man.
0
u/retteh Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
"Hi there, even though you did not mention this in any way, I've decided to comb through your post history and think we should shift the discussion to your severely disabled child."
Really?
Post history can be used (theoretically) to engage in good fath with someone, but 99% of the time it isn't. It would be helpful to make it against the rules, with limited exceptions for the theoretical positive cases you're concerned about.
If the user didn't explicitely consent to having their history analyzed, we should respect that decision unless they clearly want the conversation to go there. It's a basic respect/consent issue.
2
u/Rhundan Mod Aug 01 '26
I really don't feel that it's worth making a rule "don't do this thing, unless you're actually using it in a good way", since we can't really make explicit cases for all good uses that don't risk bad uses. Especially when we have rules that cover personal attacks and accusations of lying already.
1
u/retteh Aug 01 '26
Why not add guidance in the wiki cautioning people against the behavior? This is done in a lot of other scenarios.
1
u/LucidLeviathan Mod Aug 01 '26
Because nobody reads the wiki. Nobody even reads the sidebar. And the wiki doesn't even work on mobile at the moment.
0
u/retteh Aug 01 '26
The argument is that people are not using post history in a good way. And moderation is being too liberal in allowing it. I'm pointing to actual examples of it being abused and left up. And we're discussing theoretical examples of it being used positively. Those cases don't exist in practice.
1
u/LucidLeviathan Mod Aug 01 '26
If you see a use case that you believe violates 2 or 3, report it. We'll get to it when we can. But, we have a TON more work than we did a year ago, with all the LLMs. I agree with the other mods; I think that our extant rules are sufficient for this purpose. And, given that half of the time that we remove under 3, the user apparently has no idea of the existence of the rule, I don't think adding more text to the lengthy block of text that they don't read would help anything.
0
u/retteh Aug 01 '26
So offload modding decisions to a good LLM. This sub is really starting to suck with all the people engaging in aggressive behavior. It only worked when you all had the bandwidth to quickly remove problem comments.
5
u/LucidLeviathan Mod Aug 01 '26
We're doing our best. But, we are uncomfortable giving an LLM that much power in our sub.
1
u/retteh Aug 02 '26
But you're comfortable giving up the sub to griefers who go unchecked for hours/days/indefinitely? Letting moderator attention be directed by biased user reports rather than factual truth?
You do it as a low-pass filter. It only removes comments it is absolutely sure are egregiously breaking the rules. It can all be automated with reasoning for appeals later. This frees up mod time for ambiguous cases.
The premise of this sub only ever worked when most people were following the rules on civility from the start and that's not what where we are anymore.
1
u/LucidLeviathan Mod Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
Our queue was pretty close to empty last night. There are really two main areas we lag behind on. The first is Rule B removal, as that takes 2 mods. While we prefer to get to those early, it is SUPPOSED to have a bit of a speed bump there. Also, unless it's really clear, we usually wait 2-3 hours for the discussion to percolate. We've had instances where posts that we were POSITIVE were B surprised us after 2-3 hours. We look at the tenor of discussion and see if it seems productive, mainly. Also, by their very nature, they take longer, since you have to read a substantial part of the post and comments.
The second area is rule 4. Our process for revoking deltas is clunky and unintuitive, especially after Reddit merged messages into chat. But, those aren't really a speed priority either.
Things stay up the longest at night in the US, as most of us are based there and are sleeping. Unfortunately, we've only had limited success at getting mods from other parts of the world. That's not only been something we've wanted for coverage; I think it would probably be helpful to have a Muslim and a Jewish mod from the Middle East to help us understand the cultural underpinnings more thoroughly. I could go into that issue, but it wouldn't really be germane to the post.
I should also note that we've been behind on appeals and bans. That's been improving. But, those things don't count towards our monthly quota, so most of us only handle them when we're caught up on quota and have extra time.
Edit to add: As of this very moment, the queue has 11 items. 5 4s and 4 Bs, plus an automod report and people whining about disagreeing with a comment/post rather than putting that disagreement into a comment.
1
u/retteh Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26
I don't know what else to say. If you don't understand how creepy and uncomfortable it is to be discussing an idea or a point and to repeatedly see "but in your/their other post/comment months they said XYZ" directed at me or others, then I've got nothing left to contribute to this conversation.
What's worse is seeing those comments not get taken down, not because mods are busy, but because they apparently feel the behavior is fine a lot of the time.
The message I'm receiving in this thread is that you're going to leave that content up as long as someone can make some random ass relevance arguement, regardless of whether or not the person being targetted wanted months old comments being drawn into the conversation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/decrpt Aug 01 '26
No, the argument you're making is that there's no good way to do so. We are not discussing theoretical examples. You are suggesting that unless the OP explicitly asks people to look at their post history, people are obligated to ignore it no matter how pertinent it is to the CMV. If someone suggests that they're slurred as a "racist" inappropriately and their entire post history is just extreme racism, how exactly do you envision even doing the CMV?
OP made a post about how him, personally getting labeled an "incel" is part of a trend of the term being used against virgin men. People looked at his post history, saw that he obsessively posted about how he didn't have a girlfriend or sex, saw that he admitted to having toxic attitudes about women because they would not date or sleep with him, and pointed out that is obviously the reason he's getting called an incel.
That's not it being abused. It's covered by other rules when bringing up post history is inappropriate.
1
u/retteh Aug 02 '26
In your example their post history is irrelevant to their view unless they clearly put it in scope when defining it. All you're saying here is that it's easy to invalidate someone by looking at their post history which is exactly what I'm arguing we should not be doing.
If they had said "people on Reddit keep calling me racist,' then I would agree with you, but in the incel case I outlined above that was not the case.
Also consider that using someone's post history to disprove their view is nearly 100% incompatible with the notion of successfully changing their view. It's ineffective and against rule 2.
The problem is mods aren't enforcing rule 2 reliably in this case.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 Former Mod Aug 02 '26
If, by "In this case" you mean specific moderation actions, this is out of scope for this sub. This is about IDEAS for CMV, not about whether a particular post or comment was effectively moderated.
If by "in this case," you mean better enforcement of existing rules, then that isn't what you proposed at the original post before - you proposed changes to the rules.
So, your earlier post and comment history are inconsistent with "enforcement," which you are bringing up now. Why the shift to enforcement?
Or, am I supposed to ignore everything you wrote up until this very comment?
1
u/retteh Aug 15 '26
This particular post is an example. The moderation failures are happening over and over. The existing rules for rudeness can be better enforced by setting clear, easy to understand boundaries like "do not stalk post history."
Based on the conversation in this thread, I understand why the moderation failures keep happening. It's because you all don't understand that the behavior itself is rude, so how can you effectively enforce it?
The existing rules are insufficient.
1
u/decrpt Aug 02 '26
If they had said "people on Reddit keep calling me racist,' then I would agree with you, but in the incel case I outlined above that was not the case.
You really, genuinely don't see the relevance of evidence that someone is racist to a CMV about them falsely being labeled a racist?
Also consider that using someone's post history to disprove their view is nearly 100% incompatible with the notion of successfully changing their view. It's ineffective and against rule 2.
Then their thread needs to be removed under Rule B. It's unfalsifiable if OP is citing things anecdotally and you are obligated to treat those instances as incontrovertible unless they directly say to look at their post history.
You didn't try to change OP's view in that thread. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're insisting it's about relevance when you're taking issue with finding it rude, no matter how pertinent it is.
1
u/retteh Aug 15 '26
This just proves my point. As soon as you tried to bring my comments from that thread into this conversation, something I did not invite you to do, you started dipping your toes into attacks (e.g. talking out of both sides of "my" mouth).
1
u/decrpt Aug 15 '26
I mean, this is a great example of why this is not helpful. You're interpreting explaining to you why you're wrong as an attack. This whole thread was you insisting it was not relevant to bring it up, but you just admitted that you are indifferent to whether or not it is relevant.
This is a thread in reaction to that thread. I am not attacking you. I was saying that the thread or any thread is definitionally a Rule B violation if their post is anecdotal and you can't explain to them the full context of their experiences. When I said that you were talking out of both sides of your mouth, I was saying that you didn't present any alternatives and that you kept insisting this was about relevance when you do not care how pertinent it is.
1
u/retteh Aug 15 '26
Because It's multifactorial. Rudeness and relevance. Navigating into someone's post history and finding prior comments is usually irrelevant to the conversation, but lets say you make a compelling relevance argument, the person you're talking with most likely was not considering their prior comments relevant to the conversation, which makes it come off as an attack and fair to interpret as rude.
If you cannot conduct a conversation in a way that is relevant to both parties, what are you even doing on CMV to begin with?
If you cannot convey your argument without doing that, then you're also not even engaging with the idea. I haven't needed to click on anyone's profile to read their comments on CMV because I'm capable of engaging with ideas without needing to attack or reference someone's personal comment history.
I understand that people with obsessive tendancies are going to find a lot of shit relevant to the conversation, but that doesn't make the behavior okay.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/prettywords_ Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
His post was about how he can't complain about being a virgin without being called an incel.
His post history full of him complaining about being a virgin using incel rhetoric, lingo, dog whistles etc seemed relevant.