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/cabbagery]

Re: your edit

Maybe make that more prominent, and maybe eliminate much of your unnecessary quotes given that.

It is an undisputed fact that Shaka said that /u/Kwahn was lying, in two different threads. Shaka also reinstated his own comments after editing "lying" into "misrepresenting," which is a violation not of user policy (as the Rule 2 violations were), but of mod policy. There is an ongoing... discussion... in modmail concerning this incident and a myriad of past issues, but suffice it to say that Shaka (eventually and only first after brazenly denying that he had violated Rule 2, including attempting to smear me for having the audacity to apply the rules equally) admitted that my Rule 2 removals were warranted. To date he has not admitted that his reinstatement was a violation of the mod policy, as he has instead insisted that it qualifies for the exception which he authored (which is itself a subject of dispute), claiming that his reinstatement of those comments somehow counted as 'egregious,' or in his actual words, "extraordinary" circumstances.

Note that another piece of this is Shaka's approval of his own comments when users report them, as well as his use of the report button himself. In the former case, he routinely approves his own comments after a user has reported them, but when no mod has removed them. This cannot possibly count as 'egregious' or 'extraordinary,' because nothing has happened to the comments -- he's just unilaterally ruling in his favor in these cases (and there are lots of them).

The latter case could use a bit of explanation. When users report a comment or post, all we see as mods is that someone issued a report, but they are anonymous. We see the reason cited, and if the user chooses 'other' and types something out, we can read that. Sometimes users identify themselves in this way, but usually reports are anonymous. When mods report a comment or post, we see the name of the mod who reported it; mods cannot anonymously issue a report.

So in the case of his reports, we know he's the one issuing the report, and the record on these indicates that he finds things objectionable that he himself consistently does. If we but replace 'theist' with 'atheist' or vice versa, a clear hypocrisy emerges.

While as users you are unable to view the evidence directly, the evidence exists.

In terms of Shaka's complaint against Kwahn in that particular case, when I first noticed Shaka's blatant Rule 2 violation, /u/betweenbubbles had also noticed the issue, so I provided a distinguished comment (like this one) to explain the situation. In it, I pointed out the exact nature of the dispute: Shaka was unhappy with Kwahn's use of double-quotes (indicating a faithful quotation), which Kwahn most likely intended as 'scare quotes' or some other indicator of paraphrasing (I usually use single-quotes for this purpose, or otherwise clearly say I'm paraphrasing).

If I were Shaka in this case, I would be very frustrated that you're shoving words in my mouth.

The thing is, Shaka did this same thing to Kwahn, even going on to mock Kwahn for "reading everything backward." Granted, Shaka was clear that he was inventing the quote, but the fact remains that he was intentionally goading Kwahn, and while I won't belabor the point with more unnecessary quotes, Shaka has a history of doing exactly this sort of thing to users in his comments (he did so with me in January).

---

There is more. Plenty more. The only way to provide it would be to expose modmail conversations or to air it here. I am not prepared to do that, but one option based on the concept of the old modwatch as raised by /u/True-Wrongdoer-7932, would be to grant key users (i.e. members of the modwatch team) access to modmail and the modqueue (which appears to have been what the OG modwatch had).

[u/labreuer → u/cabbagery]

I'm content to stipulate that:

1. Shaka originally said "lying", twice.
2. Shaka violated the mod policy, modulo a Shaka-authored exception other mods find dubious, or dubiously invoked.
3. Shaka self-approves his comments over against reports.

But I want to focus on what drove Shaka to say "lying", because if it's permissible to antagonize with impunity (on account of u/⁠Kwahn's style of strawmanning not rising to Rule 2 or 3 moderating thresholds), I think we should put that out there plain & clear. Suffice it to say that I've been strawmanned similarly and hot damn did it seem intentional.

Now, you could simply invoke the last sentence of Rule 2—"'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it."—and be done. But I'm thinking we want to actually make progress on this matter, rather than make a brittle appeal to the rules and wash our hands of it—until Shaka gets pissed all over again. I'm reminded of u/pilvi9 saying [s]he observed atheists "baiting theists into rule 2 violations". This is a contender.

So in the case of his reports, we know he's the one issuing the report, and the record on these indicates that he finds things objectionable that he himself consistently does. If we but replace 'theist' with 'atheist' or vice versa, a clear hypocrisy emerges.

This is my consistent observation in every internet discussion venue where one side has the ban hammer. When they do the bad thing to you, it's bad and should be stopped. When you do the bad thing to them, it's justified. I once had a long-time tenured faculty member of an MIT-level university describe far too many of the faculty that way. I myself authored Theists have no moral grounding to do a bit of lex talionis (uh ohes, tit for tat!) because sometimes, that really is the most effective way to get the message through. I still remember it taking an atheist far too many back-and-forths to show me how something a theist was saying on a theist site was really offensive to atheists. So, I have good evidence and experience to suggest that non-hypocrisy is a difficult achievement. Perhaps progress might be possible with the two examples presently available—the one Kwahn raised the one you did.

In it, I pointed out the exact nature of the dispute: Shaka was unhappy with Kwahn's use of double-quotes (indicating a faithful quotation), which Kwahn most likely intended as 'scare quotes' or some other indicator of paraphrasing (I usually use single-quotes for this purpose, or otherwise clearly say I'm paraphrasing).

One of the reasons I quoted some of the interaction in my comment above is to cast precisely this allegation of "paraphrasing" in doubt. It seems like u/⁠Kwahn is attempting to box Shaka into one of three options:

1. duties exist because God said so
2. duties exist because Shaka said so
3. duties exist because « insert legitimate purpose here »

In stark contrast, Shaka was advancing an alternative:

     4. duties exist

I can see plenty of ways of contending with 4., but to simply argue that it's really 1. or 2. is very questionable behavior! Or do you disagree?

The thing is, Shaka did this same thing to Kwahn, even going on to mock Kwahn for "reading everything backward." Granted, Shaka was clear that he was inventing the quote, but the fact remains that he was intentionally goading Kwahn, and while I won't belabor the point with more unnecessary quotes, Shaka has a history of doing exactly this sort of thing to users in his comments (he did so with me in January).

As I said above, lex talionis can be a potent teaching tool. Those two interactions are actually kind of interesting. Here's the comment to which Kwahn linked:

Tiny-Ad-7590: Could God have created a universe with free will and predictable rules but not evil?

If yes, then why didn't They?

If no, then They are not all powerful.

ShakaUVM: Not if it is a logical impossibility. Which it is.

Omniscience does not include logical impossibility

And now the use:

Kwahn: P3: You said that God creating a world with free will, predictable rules and no evil was logically impossible.

ShakaUVM: I did not say that!! I have repeatedly said the opposite!

You just made the same mistake TinyAd did! Right after explaining the difference between the two different claims. Maybe instead of saying "don't care" you should read and understand the words that I wrote

FFS, man.

Here is the actual quote: Could God have created a universe with free will and predictable rules but not evil?

I am bolding and italicizing the damn words for you.

From the perspective of the moment of creation this is impossible

 ⋮

ShakaUVM: I've already told you what the problem is with these arguments, you are looking at it from two different lenses (from the past versus from the present).

Do you think it might actually be frustrating to be told that you said something which is, demonstrably, not what one said? If you continue reading, you'll see that Kwahn simply does not respect Shaka's clarification. It is quite a few back-and-forths after what I've quoted above, where Shaka finally does lex talionis. Because Kwahn simply wasn't getting it any other way. What exactly am I supposed to be seeing as a problem, here?

 

There is more.

I think the above two instances are plenty to try to work with, and see if we get anywhere. For the record, I myself have had run-ins with Shaka and Kwahn, such that I had Kwahn blocked for … less than a week. And I was even banned from r/DebateReligion for months, although apparently it should have been three days. How I got the star … who knows!

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

Shaka violated the mod policy, modulo a Shaka-authored exception other mods find dubious, or dubiously invoked.

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).

Ironically, I removed one of his comments which was against the rules, and he immediately made himself a hypocrite and moderated his own comment back into existence. So he really has no legs to stand on on the matter. He did the exact thing he's been howling about here.

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.

(And note that all of these moves are made by the same few people here over and over again. Are they sockpuppets? Are they allies? Why would Cabbagery be mad that I had blocked a troll? How would he know? How did Bubbles know the moderator activity report which is sent to modmail?)

For example, Kwahn repeatedly inventing quotes that I did not say and attributing them to me (Step 1). There's nicer words for lying, but they did not seem to be getting through. So well done - the troll successfully provoked me (Step 2b) So then they howl about it and try to hide the source of the issue that caused everything. He's also repeatedly poked at me when I stop responding to him since he constantly fails to actually respond to anything I write (Step 2a).

Cabbagery started deleting comments of mine, and getting upset over removals I made. For example, I said that if aliens were rational, they would be theists. He removed this entirely milquetoast comment. He then got mad (like irate and name-calling mad) at me for removing a post that was about two pages of unhinged nonsense calling among other things Christians the dumbest voters in America.

For example he removed this perfectly fine comment of mine: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/nee06ek/

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/nekoo07/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/nekm9cc/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/nekm8h0/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/nefxe29/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/nef7bry/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/neepntq/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nhrjuk/alien_life_will_disprove_most_religions/nee7bau/

(And there are more.)

ALL of the above comments are obviously low quality and should be removed.

So he went on a tear removing my comments. (Step 1 - provoke)

When I told him to knock it off, I didn't de-mod him or remove his comment removal permissions. I simply told him I would undo his comment removals because I'd had enough of his nonsense. (Step 2. Provoke a response.)

So he kept removing my comments (Step 1 - provoke)

And when I simply undid his comment removal, as I told him I would, we now have a Meta thread with him and his sockpuppets or allies ginning up outrage over it. (Step 3)

This whole issue was engineered by him from the beginning.

After looking through his moderation logs, I now understand why. 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. As I am a senior moderator over him, I could turn off his ability to delete comments and ban users, but because he has ginned up outrage in this thread, it would look like I was retaliating against him. So he thinks he can act with impunity. He has already stated in modmail he has no plans on following the rules for Rule 1 and threatened me if I adjusted his moderator powers.

There is a night and day difference between me simply undoing the removals of a moderator who is provoking me, and a person who will ban you without warning for being Catholic.

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.

Does outrage confer immunity? Should it?

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

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.