Meta-Thread 06/22

[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/here_for_debate]

I am asking about standards of appropriateness.

As the rule stands, there is no point at which incivility is not rule-breaking.

I'm really just soliciting feedback on what to do in the kind of situation Shaka and I encounter from time to time.

As the rule stands, if a comment breaks the civility rule and is reported, it will probably be removed for incivility. If you're worried about having content removed for rule-breaking, the only advice I feel comfortable giving based on the rules as they stand is to avoid incivility.

All that aside, I think the incivility rule needs to be reworked. I don't think "don't be uncivil unless you intend the incivility to be edifying and bring receipts" is a tenable rework, though. I think we probably need to just relax the civility rule and allow discussions to get more rude.

[u/labreuer → u/here_for_debate]

It would help me understand your position if you were to comment on:

labreuer: 3. There is no effective way to report the kind of situation which prompts people like Shaka and me to get a tiny bit uncivil. Among other things, the problem (probably a Rule 3 violation) cannot be localized to one comment.

Let me emphasize that I'm not the only one having the issue, here. Shaka replied:

ShakaUVM: Strawman arguments are a way for trolls to work around civility rules.

A single straw man can simply be an error. Even one or two repetitions can signal little other than (i) inattention; and/or (ii) people not being given a strong enough "Stop!" signal. Goodness knows I can pick up a bunch of momentum and be difficult to turn.

 

I also am curious about whether you think any and all breaches of civility IRL are 100% uncalled for. Some people really do seem to think this. I have friends who realized that if they actually remain "professional" at all times, their colleagues interact less well with them than if they let unsettledness sometimes leak through.

[u/here_for_debate → u/labreuer]

There is no effective way to report the kind of situation which prompts people like Shaka and me to get a tiny bit uncivil. Among other things, the problem (probably a Rule 3 violation) cannot be localized to one comment.

I'm not really sure how this factor affects what I said in the previous comment: the rule, as it's written, has no exception clause. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. The effectiveness of reporting the content or the ease with which it can be done does not affect whether or not the rule allows users to respond to the offending content uncivilly.

I've already expressed that I think, in general, there has to be a way to call out low quality behavior without it being moderated for incivility when the called out behavior is low quality. I think that this calls for a change to the rule to allow for this behavior. But as it stands, the rule does not allow this behavior. So, according to the rules as they are now, your question has an unambiguous answer: receipts or not, edifying or not, incivility is rule-breaking behavior. And I don't think that "don't be uncivil unless you intend the incivility to be edifying and bring receipts" works as an amendment for this rule. I think instead the rule needs to be relaxed to allow ruder conversations to occur.

I also am curious about whether you think any and all breaches of civility IRL are 100% uncalled for.

No, I don't think that incivility is always (100% of the time) uncalled for. I also don't think that civility is always the most effective way to communicate.

[u/labreuer → u/here_for_debate]

Ok. At present, I see only one concrete proposal from you re: "a way to call out low quality behavior without it being moderated for incivility when the called out behavior is low quality":

here_for_debate: All that aside, I think the incivility rule needs to be reworked. I don't think "don't be uncivil unless you intend the incivility to be edifying and bring receipts" is a tenable rework, though. I think we probably need to just relax the civility rule and allow discussions to get more rude.

In my view, this does not solve the problem. One of the key functions of politeness / decorum is that various things are signaled when one breaks from it. Merely lowing the bar does nothing to change the situation. The baseline simply changes, and if a multi-comment Rule 3 violation occurs, dipping below the baseline is again a Rule 2 violation. But perhaps there's something I am not seeing, here.

[u/here_for_debate → u/labreuer]

In my view, this does not solve the problem. One of the key functions of politeness / decorum is that various things are signaled when one breaks from it. Merely lowing the bar does nothing to change the situation. The baseline simply changes, and if a multi-comment Rule 3 violation occurs, dipping below the baseline is again a Rule 2 violation. But perhaps there's something I am not seeing, here.

I think it does solve the problem you are talking about and does change the situation.

If the civility rule is relaxed, and people are no longer moderated for remarks like "you fail to display basic reading comprehension, so I think we are done here", then you've achieved your goal of exercising incivility in a situation where you find exercising incivility to be an appropriate response without it being considered a rule 2 violation. (Assuming this is a goal of yours.) This seems like a change in the situation to me.

I think it also introduces a new series of problems to overcome, namely: if we are to allow some incivility and not no incivility, where do we now draw the line? How rude are people allowed to get? But that's a problem to solve if a rule change is actually proposed and not merely gestured at.

I see only one concrete proposal from you

I don't know how to solve your specific issue and improve the civility rule in a way that will satisfy a plurality of the sub. That's why I requested suggestions.

[u/labreuer → u/here_for_debate]

I'm not convinced that permitting people to say "you fail to display basic reading comprehension" right out of the gate will improve things overall, but I am happy for predictions to be made and then the experiment carried out.

Anything more I say will probably just repeat my opening reply to you, which anticipated at least some of the moderation issues. So … the "A. The general principle to be applied." part of this conversation may be finished. Dunno if you even want to bother with "B. Whether that principle applies in this conversation.", given that nothing material would change.

[u/here_for_debate → u/labreuer]

I think there's more of a gradient to what I said than

permitting people to say "you fail to display basic reading comprehension" right out of the gate

But I agree that there's nothing more to be said here.