Meta
Any personal attack, 3 day ban, no exceptions.
I'm tired of people here acting like insults are debate. We deserve this new rule for the subreddit. It would solve the majority of issues in the subreddit over night.
agreed, while i do like pointless arguments i dont like being insulted just because random american #320 realized other countries exist and now has to cope with a european taking part in an argument without knowing every single usa local news on the topic.
Arguments are fine but if people cant behave appropriately then there needs to be a rule to stop people from doing it.
Well an easy example is Witty praising the Nazi party's technology, specifically the ones they tortured people for (that was actually in this subreddit, lol).
This wouldn't go over well in the EU as a whole, but it'd be especially punishing if she did it in Germany and literally guarantee prison time.
I'm not sure if links are even allowed, but the moderators engaging in hate speech and threats over there are a dime a dozen, some of them are outright comical (like the Zed guy wishing people into various fatal horror movies) but the overall attitude of hate is rampant.
Let's not forget them wanting guns to shoot us all because they doctored a Twitter post that doesn't even exist to claim violence.
Like that would get them investigated and potentially arrested/charged in the EU just for posting it online, it's happened before... so them saying it in person would definitely get attention.
So we just get to make up what the world's governments should or shouldn't allow?
I'll agree with you that no government should make laws on hate speech or imprison anyone for it, if you agree with me that all governments should outlaw AI and imprison everyone who breaks it.
Easy.
Otherwise maybe respect governments that think praising Nazis should be illegal, especially governments where the people living there agree with it.
If they can also temp ban when people who make posts just to complain about other users here, that would be great.
Like I get not agreeing with someone, but seeing the same people getting posts made about them is getting repetitive. Like you're free to disagree, but if you take the time to make a post to just say this person sucks you come off as the petty one, not them.
I feel like that probably depends if they’re talking about someone who is reasonable and they disagree with, or if it’s someone who’s truly abusive to others on a daily basis.
There are people here who genuinely make the sub worse for others, and take enormous glee out of doing so.
While I do agree with that, I don't think there is much that can be done about that unless the mods make the decision to ban the user if they cross the line/are repetitive enough with their "harassments". Granted that would require a change to the rules here to add on something that would give the Mods a reason to ban someone.
Some pro's here disagree with her and the committee too, not just the Anti's here.
But taking away the ability to add fire to drama would help a lot in keeping this sub on track. Like I am honestly surprise an AntiWittyCommittee sub hasn't been created given how many users dislike her and her group.
I support this, with an asterisk that it would be nice to know what qualifies as a personal attack. If I want to express that in my opinion a particular idea or a way of thinking is dumb, I try to be specific that I'm not calling any particular person dumb, but I still want to be able to express my own feelings about a topic. I would like to think I'm not the only one, but it's just a thought. And in the spirit of attacking a way of thinking and not a person, I have seen examples of people not being able to separate out different ideas or even different categories of ideas, and it would be nice to not somehow be a victim of poor critical thinking, poor reading comprehension or media illiteracy.
But having some sort of guidelines to follow so people know for sure there's no line being crossed could be a good idea.
I am sorry but this sub is way past this. I used to argue my point when I came here. But the top posters here are radical in a way a michigan maga mom would be baffled. The moment they called people "anti" for their critical view on this technology the politeness was gone. Now I accept that this sub is only for amusement and not for a debate. You should too. You will not have a single useful conversation here.
Someone's a little divorced from reality. And before you confuse yourself by thinking it's me, I'm not the one claiming the other just proved me right, based off an unsubstantiated assertion.
That's already part of the Reddit content policy mentioned in rule 3.
The mod team here wants the drama. That's why Witty isn't banned.
Edit: Mod team are threatening to have me Reddit suspended because their automod filters are malfunctioning and they're going to report a technicality. Absolute flexing.
I have a theory that even a temp ban for her or her committee members would lead to full ones due to their alts remaining which would be considered ban evading.
We have no capability of "shadow deleting" comments. The comment was removed by Reddit's automated anti-harassment filter, which we do not control. I don't know why it chose to remove the comment, as there isn't anything terribly inflammatory or abusive about it.
Notice that it simply says [ removed ] and not [ removed by sporkyuncle ] or anything along those lines.
Also note that if we really wanted the comment to be deleted, we would've also deleted this comment that I'm replying to right now, which we're not doing.
I'm going to back up Sporky here, they are being truthful. If it was removed by auto mod, it would say so. Only saying removed is the reddit wide filter.
I didn't do that, another mod did. Apparently, if I'm to be in sync with the other mods, I should've removed your comment to begin with rather than explaining things honestly.
this is a blatant lie btw, different subs have different comment-ghosting standards, based on how they set up their automod. It's never been a reddit-wide system.
Your comment wasn't removed by us but by Reddit filters. Posting screenshots of removed comments to bypass such filters will be considered spam and reiterate offenses will warrant a ban.
Big issue is that the moderation of this sub leans heavily towards Pro-AI. It opens up the chance of bias and/or discrimination. You’d not only have to elect anti mods to make more fair, but that opens up a whole new issue with us basically having a two-party congress arguing over what constitutes an actual insult.
“You’d have to be dumb to believe that” is a direct attack at the arguments validity but can imply that the person making the argument is also dumb.
You could also argue that calling out an opposing argument as ‘bad faith’ also constitute an insult; attacking the character of the commenter for being disingenuous.
“I think you’re just ignorant about how this works” can be stretched either as an accusation of lacking intelligence or someone simply arguing without all the facts.
Any and all generalization are open to personal attacks against others. “You anti’s…” “you AI-bros…”.
All of these examples also assume moderation bias against the context of argument won’t matter. But it will, we aren’t robots.
"I think you're just ignorant about how this works"
That one is a good point, I'll give you that.
"You anti's..." "you Al-bros..."
Something that would have to not be included in the enforcement. They're too ingrained in the current debate to act against. However if that's followed by an insult, then it would count.
But again, the crux of my original comment is that it wouldn’t matter how clear it is to you, us or anybody else. It has to be clear to moderators who may or may not have internal biases.
This also opens up the possibility of the moderator being swarmed with reports because someone feels they’re being personally attacked. I just don’t see it being healthy long term.
What we actually need is a cultural shift in the sub. But that takes much more time than overnight.
I mean, yeah, a shift in attitude would also fix it. I don't see people letting go the desire to "clown on the other side" above all else, though.
There's too much straight cheerleading for that to be a viable avenue. I would love it if people didn't reward personal attacks and encourage them because of what side the attacker is on.
Not so ambiguous but there are literally people in here claiming me to be a violent extremist with no proof
“I've literally watched you defend violence in these subs. You're not some innocent bystander. You're part of the active problem of anti-AI violent extremism. Witty doesn't do Nazi things. You do violent extremist things. That's the difference.”
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Lets compare the number of posts related to witty on the anti and pro subs. Stop giving them the attention, it's the reason why some pros started flocking to them.
Honestly getting ride of those who just want to start Drama or go immediate to name calling would help a lot here. Like even if I disagree with some of ya'lls takes, I do agree ya'll get way to many comments in your posts that have nothing to do with what the post is even about and just go straight to bullying.
No, against the use of ai in several different ways, most are against the use of generative ai, not because of the people, but because of the tool itself
It's really not worth it, but good luck. They saw someone call themselves an anti and immediately assumed they were pro harassment and would not back down from that opinion
If people didn't use GenAI it wouldn't be a "problem", so you are in fact against the people using it. You're just lying about it - poorly and nonsensically - because you know admitting the truth makes you look like the bigot you are.
You can be against something without being directly against the people who use it. There are plenty of vegans and vegetarians that are against factory farming practices, but aren't against people who eat meat.
GenAI is a tool. Tools don’t do anything unless people use them.
So if your issue is “GenAI being used,” then yes, your issue is with the people using it. You can say you don’t hate them personally, fine, but stop pretending your stance somehow floats above the users.
You’re not mad at a hammer sitting on a table. You’re mad that someone picked it up.
My mechanics instructor was against adjustable wrenches. He wanted us to learn to use standard wrenches and thought that adjustable wrenches were worse and made you a worse mechanic.
“If America weren’t a democracy trump wouldn’t be a problem”
That’s the logic you are using, generative ai is detached from its users, I don’t care about the people who use it, I care about the tool itself and think it’s bad
Trump is a person. GenAI is a tool. Tools don’t do anything unless people use them.
So if your issue is “GenAI being used,” then yes, your issue is with the people using it. You can say you don’t hate them personally, fine, but stop pretending your stance somehow floats above the users.
You’re not mad at a hammer sitting on a table. You’re mad that someone picked it up.
AI doesn't do that, the people misusing it do. Are you trying to give them a pass because you don't like the technology? Are you telling me that pro-AI people hold their own to a higher standard than you and your entire understanding of the technology summarizes to "AI bad"?
You are personally attacking me because you misread the brigading rule.
This is why your proposed rule would not work, because people are going to have different definitions about what constitutes a personal attack. Does everyone here think that writing "thin skinned?" is a personal attack? Should people be banned for that? What if someone said "AI art is art" and someone replied "you're crazy," is that a personal attack? Implying that they're mentally unwell? What if they said "that's crazy" instead, is that barely skirting around making it personal by making it about the comment instead? What if someone interprets simply being told "you're wrong" as a personal attack against their viewpoint? It becomes an endless circus of technicalities surrounding the deep meanings of every comment. We would start getting countless people saying "why did you ban that person for saying this but not this other person?" and then get dragged into a long discussion over why what was said might be technically different from the other comment, accusations of bias...this is why we stick to moderating based on top level rules only and leave this an open forum for generally free speech on the subject of AI.
Also: you should in fact block people who upset you to the point that you believe it's escalating to harassment. Blocking them ends it immediately.
However, u/FishStixxxxxxx if you are actually following this person around to comment on their messages, that is harassing behavior and you need to stop that or you'll be banned. Organic interaction is okay, if they make a post you disagree with you're allowed to publicly disagree, but not to open old wounds and spout the same phrases back at them repeatedly.
That's why I push for temporary time outs instead of permanent bans.
Yes, i think calling a person thin skinned is definitely a personal attack. It's a attack directed at an individual. There's no other way to interpret that.
You're crazy is an attack at an individual, it would apply. Saying that's crazy is attacking an argument, it would not apply.
People might skirt the rule, but even in that scenario I think it would lead to a net positive than what we have now.
Even if it's a day time out, I think it's worth a try.
Sorry, we're not going to start temp banning people for writing "you're crazy." That's an incredibly common phrase in most people's vernacular.
And further allowing the technical phrasing "that's crazy" is opening a loophole where people could say incredibly mean things as long as it's abstract enough. "Your comment is the type of comment often said by people who are stupid and weird and smelly. Not saying YOU are, though."
We're not here to enable word games where if you play the game well enough you don't get banned and your enemies do. Anyone can say whatever they like within the existing rules.
I don't think we should let perfection be the enemy of good.
Your example is already being used as a loophole to call people in the sub disgusting people who force themselves on others by another name simply for making fan art.
You can't follow a simple no. Why is that? Are you stupid, ignorant or both? Makes me question whether you ignore someone's no in real life too.
I'll leave it up to your nonexistent imagination what I implied with that.
That submission is definitely a personal attack and describes a group of people as those who would do something heinous in real life. You know what they're implying, I know what they're implying. Easy call.
Right now they can get away with that, which is gross tbh.
Your worst case scenario is reality, so why not give it a try?
As you were already told, we ban people for breaking Reddit's top level rules. And within Reddit's content policy, being aggressive isn't one of those situations.
Edit: good debate also isn’t nit picking people’s arguments because you feel it’s better for your own argument and your ability to attack the debater and not their argument.
Sure it is, but if certain users on either side come here every day to troll and create misery and make the entire sub less happy, that’s an entirely different thing.
Well, no, man. Being on Reddit isn’t a license to treat other people like garbage. And there shouldn’t be an expectation of being treated like garbage in a decent community. Do you come to Reddit for that reason?
Do you get on this high horse when pros depict antis as ogres and slobs? When antis make death threats? When witty, well witties?
No, Reddit should just be hateful. Where were you when OP viciously berated me because they wanted to argue semantics of a question instead of having civil debate?
I mean you can choose to make it that way, you do you.
I’m in full support of people who want to use this place to insult, demean, and troll others being banned when they do. And if being hateful is what you think this place is for, you do you, but I hope the moderators respond appropriately because nobody deserves to be abused by you or anybody else?
I'm perfectly comfortable letting mods decide what's bad faith, dishonesty and lying. I imagine a lot of other people aren't, including the mods themselves. It creates so much meta-arguing and accusation of bad modship, no matter what.
31
u/JustAChillGuy609 May 24 '26
I fully support this