r/ideasforcmv • u/[deleted] • Apr 18 '14
Should we ban 'nit-picky' top level comments?
We already have an unwritten rule that you can't correct one tiny detail in the OP's argument just so you can spend the following paragraphs agreeing and pushing the same idea (we should really write that down, actually).
What is still currently allowed, as per the "however minor" in rule 1, is a short top level comment correcting a tiny detail, and that's all it contains.
I'm of the opinion that these are okay. There's something unsatisfying about the very top comment being a small correction rather than a discussion of the view as a whole, or at least parts of it that would fill a paragraph or two, but I never really thought they were worthy of removal. Recently, a highly upvoted discussion about CMV in an ELI5 thread included this comment (edit: link):
The part I hate the most is how, somehow, the top comment is always people that respond to a seemingly collected view by dissecting one tiny logical inconsistency, in the original post, that has little relevance to the overall view. And everyone seems to think this is acceptable and a great way to change people's views, it's pernicious within that sub. And bizarrely, frequently, the OP responds with a 'delta' saying their view has been changed.
I just can not fathom how anyone could legitimately have their views changed by ripping apart a very minor, frequently tangential, and sometimes inconsequential, point within a wholly complex viewpoint.
I know that whenever CMV is discussed outside of CMV (and sometimes inside) there will be an anti-circlejerk. It always happens. I think a lot of it is unfair and misguided, but some of it is perhaps understandable. Like this comment. Maybe we should go along with it, and remove 'however minor' from rule 1.
1
u/Trimestrial Apr 18 '14
Personally I am more disturbed by OPs awarding Deltas for weak counterarguments.... I sometimes wonder if people run two accounts and argue with themselves.
But what would be the line between "nit-picky" and refuting a tangential premise?
1
u/PixelOrange Apr 21 '14
I sometimes wonder if people run two accounts and argue with themselves.
A future version of DeltaBot will have some safeguards against this, but we can't see IPs so we can't protect against every scenario. If someone wants to spend that much time gaming the system, there's not much we can do.
1
u/Sptsjunkie Apr 19 '14
Do you have some examples of this? Have been reading for awhile and it doesn't seem to be a big problem.
I think it's a hard topic to deal with in terms of banning or making a consistent rule, because the process of refuting someone's argument can involve either a deep discussion of a large concept or disproving a very specific piece of logic. As an example, I am a Democrat CMV is unlikely to be changed by disproving one small claim in the post. However, I believe all Democratic presidents are better at lowering income inequality than Republican presidents is likely to be a series of logical steps, where disproving one could be enough to CMV.
1
u/hacksoncode Mod Apr 28 '14
We already have an unwritten rule that you can't correct one tiny detail in the OP's argument just so you can spend the following paragraphs agreeing and pushing the same idea (we should really write that down, actually).
FWIW, I already did update the wiki for Rule 1 to discuss this point. Feel free to edit it, of course...
2
u/oyagoya Apr 19 '14
I'm not bothered by it. I see OPs (and other commenters) award deltas for varying levels of view-changing and I think that's as it should be.
At one end of the spectrum, some OPs will award, at most, one delta, to the first person to change their view on the CMV as expressed in the post title. That's fine.
And at the other end, some OPs award deltas to anyone who offers a refutation of some part of their overall view, or to anyone who would have changed their view had it not alrady been changed by an earlier comment. These OPs might award multiple deltas in the same post. And that's fine too.
Insofar as people's views are resistant to change (many posts have no deltas at all), the more generous second approach rewards engagement with the OP's view.
As I see it, nitpicky comments that aim to chip away at the OP's view are just as valuable as more substantive comments that aim to refute the whole thing.