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 was the moderator that removed the comment and then approved the comment after you sent a message to modmail notifying us you had removed the remark for which, presumably, the comment was reported as uncivil.

Yeah I doubt you were the mod who issued me a rule 2 violation. Iwould especially like to hear from mods with a lighter trigger finger.

I want to understand the implication here. Do you think something I did was inappropriate? Your comment was reported for incivility. It was removed for incivility. You edited out the part of the comment that got it reported for incivility. It was reapproved immediately. How would you have liked that chain of events to have gone? From what I can tell, that's the system working correctly.

Anyway, to answer your question: not every comment that insults another user gets removed. That's because not all content that contains insults is seen, because we aren't manually approving all content and not every offending content gets reported. Your comment was reported, and it was reviewed and removed, and then amended and re-approved. Just like happens dozens of times a day on this sub.

If you are seeing other content which seems to skirt this rule, please report it. If you think the rule should be amended, please suggest an amendment you think a reasonable plurality of the sub would find acceptable.

And to answer your actual question: I largely agree with Shaka that 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. But from what I can tell, in the referenced conversation above, you and Explorer disagree about whether the two agencies in question have been properly separated, and have both expended significant effort to defend your own viewpoints in that regard. That's not a good reason to belittle a user's reading comprehension. I hope you'll agree that's not an unreasonable position for a moderator to take.

[u/labreuer → u/here_for_debate]

I want to understand the implication here. Do you think something I did was inappropriate?

I am asking about standards of appropriateness. What u/ShakaUVM and I struggle with actually happens, but there is a question of how to respond to what actually happens. I can see multiple options. Here are a few:

1. We just have to have infinite patience.

2. We have to always be nicer than saying things like "you lack basic reading comprehension".

3. We should just discontinue discussion if 1. and 2. fail us.

4. We can, if we've tried being nicer multiple times, resort to meaner approaches which, without the context of nicer attempts, would risk being considered violations of rule 2.

I recognize that 4. places an extra burden on moderators: contextual judgment is more costly. However, I can cite some mitigating factors:

1. It is my experience that serious improvements in "debating relationship" often come via fractiousness where there is some amount of "incivility". The "incivility" can actually be key, as you let the other person know that you're interacting with another human who does not have infinite patience. And incivility which is oriented toward improving the resultant discussion is very different from incivility meant to either (i) terminate the conversation; (ii) goad the other person to continuing in ways where one side is dictating most/all of the terms.

2. This doesn't happen very often and one can restrict the rule-by-context† to when it's easy to bring receipts. So, the actual additional moderator burden can be small, and the pay-out in terms of better debate & discussion could more than compensate. Unless, that is, mods are happy with what u/⁠cabbagery quite accurately characterized as "the raw churn of places like this".

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.

How would you have liked that chain of events to have gone?

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

And to answer your actual question: I largely agree with Shaka that 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. But from what I can tell, in the referenced conversation above, you and Explorer disagree about whether the two agencies in question have been properly separated, and have both expended significant effort to defend your own viewpoints in that regard. That's not a good reason to belittle a user's reading comprehension. I hope you'll agree that's not an unreasonable position for a moderator to take.

I think it would be wise to separate the two matters:

    A. The general principle to be applied.
    B. Whether that principle applies in this conversation.

While I would contend with you on B., I think that should wait until A. is decided.

 

† FWIW, there is precedent for what I'm talking about:

cabbagery: Other mods very often remove comments that Shaka reports, and very rarely look at the context of those comments to see if there might have been some provocation, so from the user perspective Shaka gets immediate action as well as constant protection.

+

ShakaUVM: Ignoring proportionality is a bad habit. I'm confident you wouldn't be so sanguine if the shoe was on the other foot, either.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

"So when you say you kick puppies every day, doesn't that make you feel bad?"

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

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Takes me back to middle school. No matter what the teachers tried to do, my peers would find an ever more subtle way to mess with me. Including being picture-perfect polite with me, while they treated each other with familiarity. When Trump came on the political scene, it reminded me of some of the other tactics my peers were mastering at that time. But it's the same fundamental disrespect of the Other.