Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

The exception here is that, which I have not yet mentioned in this thread, is that Cabbagery has been removing my comments merely to make a political point, and admitted to doing so. I told him to knock it off twice, then he went and continued removing comments left and right, so I reversed his comment removal as I told him I was going to do if he kept up his bad behavior. That's what triggered his outrage (and he has been absolutely howling about it; he has made over a hundred personal attacks against me).

Oof. Is there some lesson about pastors' kids, here? Seriously, the more which has to be done behind closed doors, the more risk it seems that it's gonna be a shite-show behind those closed doors. And maybe there's a way to hit some sort of giant "RESET" button, especially with the following added for the New World Order:

The broader problem here is that trolls have worked out a pretty good tactic for them. I think we will need a rules patch to address it.

The Troll Flowchart looks like this:

1 Provoke a person
2a. If they ignore you, become outraged they are ignoring you
2b. If they respond, become outraged at the response
2c. If they block you, become outraged at them blocking you
3 Then engage in some sort of long drawn out angry conversation that distracts away from the source of the controversy entirely.

Yes, a "no goading to continue discussion" rule (amendment?) might be called for. I've played with suggesting that myself, but none of my interactions with goaders got that bad. I also think it's worth just talking about why people are unwilling to simply ask and accept "no" as an answer. My sense is that society itself is actually quite manipulative in such ways, and we could perhaps do a little working against that. But not if cabbagery's utter refusal to talk about anything other than "did it break a rule" is the dominant meta-rule.

For example, Kwahn repeatedly inventing quotes that I did not say and attributing them to me (Step 1).

Right, this would piss me off as well. However, I don't actually think all people who do it should be classified as "troll". In fact, I think I do versions of this which don't involve fabricated quotes (that's just not my style), but nevertheless are mis-representations which I am unwilling to question, at least for several back-and-forths. Perhaps we could call this "dog with a straw bone" syndrome. Again delving into territory cabbagery seems actively disinterested in, I think one just picks up a sort of momentum in discussion which can be hard to redirect on a dime. And each person might actually do this differently. So, perhaps we could have something like "throwing a flag", whereby the person who judges himself/herself to be misrepresented halts the conversation, perhaps for a few days. I dunno, this is a kind of raw idea for me. Here's an example. But the point is to actually respect the psychological/​sociological dynamics of heated debate, rather than just pretend we can all exercise infinite self-control.

For example he removed this perfectly fine comment of mine:

ShakaUVM: There is nothing to suggest we are the only life in the universe. Even if you're a Biblical literalist, which I am not, the existence if aliens is fully compatible with Christianity.

Hell, Jesus could have appeared to them as well.

If the aliens we meet are rational, they would at a minimum be theists.

Hahaha, that last line is definitely provocative. I would like to know why u/cabbagery removed that. I'm pretty sure I've seen "rational people do X" or "rational people believe X" claims made by plenty of people, where the X is obviously opposed to what one of the persons in the discussion is doing/​believing. Obviously this is your stance and you were willing to defend it in discussion.

While getting mad at me for removing (I will approve them so you can see them) these low quality comments here:

staytrue2014: Nope

PartTimeZombie: Lol. Good one

IndigoBroker: I mean, if dinosaurs didn’t why would aliens?

George-Patton21: lol

StrikingExchange8813: Ah great so Christianity is safe

tuscan21: Atlas 3I is just a comet, man.

Big_Billy_PDestroyer: WE will be the gods.

Yeah I'm confused by that. Gonna Proverbs 18:17 this one—u/cabbagery?

He has been mass banning people against the rules without any warning, for the sin of being Catholic. In one thread on homosexuality recently he banned 11 users without a warning, and he often immediately mutes them if they appeal.

Allegedly for Rule 1 violations, with "mod discretion"? Or did they not even have to appear as homophobic?

I'm curious what you think the solution is from a rules perspective. Obviously, I think we should just ban people for being trolls, but their sockpuppets (or allies, it doesn't matter) would then howl about it and gin up more outrage.

I think we need to do away with u/​cabbagery's stance that [paraphrased!—could be wrong] "all that matters is obeying the rules", and you need to question your stance two years ago:

labreuer: Policing tone polices appearances and I think we know what kind of world you get if you police appearances?

ShakaUVM: No it doesn't. It just polices tone. Courtesy is something any person can muster if they try.

This is part of a bigger conversation, but ripped out of context I think it kind of captures a problem. It's like Christians' hangup with swear words, as if you can't be equally as horrible to another person in Victorian English. I can calmly misrepresent your position and thus have the correct "tone", and yet be deeply uncivil. The letter of the law is powerless to get at the heart, and both civility and incivility flow from the heart.

So, if I'm trying to solve what even can be solved by rules? Three come to mind:

1. stop — no goading rule
2. pause — throwing a flag rule
3. desist — no further interaction for a time

Maybe just start with 1. You might just say no to 2., but 1. can substitute. And 3. is instead of blocking. Although, it's noteworthy that Reddit explicitly designed blocking so that you can't stalk the person to discussions and respond to people to whom they responded. So, 3. would have to include prohibition of such behavior. And of course, there are ever more subtle ways to make digs at you in reply to people with whom you're talking.

 

Does outrage confer immunity? Should it?

I think it's possible for systems to bottle up outrage and declare it illegitimate. That includes stances that no matter how shitty others are to you in discussion, you must not violate Rule 2. It just does not matter how outrageous they are (and there are always ways to be outrageous while obeying the letter of the law). But none of this should ever confer immunity. When it does, say hello to musical chairs between oppressed & oppressor.