Rules should be as predictable and consistent as is reasonably possible but changes to our "personal attack" and "neutrality" rule enforcement have lead to wildly inconsistent outcomes.

New personal attacks rules

Moderators are no longer removing a large number of personal attacks, suggesting both that they're busy and want to exercise discretion in these decisions. The sub's sidebar has a few relevant rules like

if you're here to make snarky, mocking comments and be rude to other users, you will be banned

Rude comments will be deleted. No personal attacks and no hate speech.

Comments making assertions about another user's position/intentions should be evidenced. Comments that break this rule may be deleted.

Also I made a [meta] submission about these attacks before I started reporting them. Mods removed each of them until about a month ago. Now however even when the elements of these baseless personal attacks are there, mods prefer to determine how 'bad' they think the attack is.

Even if this seems innocuous enough on its own we'll see how it causes problems with their new "neutrality" enforcement.

New neutrality: examples

Previously I argued abstractly that the neutrality rule needs to be changed. Now we'll heap a pile of examples on top.

Despite their busy schedules mods did find the time to trawl my history and exercise discretion by "removing" (not all literally 14 of my submissions dating back 3 months (his screenshot) One example, which like most/all of these had mod participation without anyone suggesting a rule violation, also had moderator's praise 3 months ago, but now it was removed with this explanation:

"Is the Redpills anti-democratic streak defensible?"

Once again, you're not really here to debate.

Alternative phrasing:

"How does Redpill feel about democracy?"

What is so striking about this example: this baseless assertion about my intent is exactly the type of attack that mods have stopped removing. It goes against the evidence of effort, sincerity etc (which originally led to moderator praise).

Mods explained the neutrality criterion (btw: do you see a substantial difference in the highlighted examples there?) as "[don't] make suppositions about the thought process of all those you're speaking to." With that in mind, here are recent conversations that I think no one should have problems with and which have been left up.

If you don't agree with TRP you don't understand TRP

Why Women Can't Give Dating Advice to Men --- Find something wrong with the logic of this post.

The massive flaw in TRP's methodology

Why do TBP members assume TRP members are lying about their experiences?

Getting laid isnt all that hard.

Blue Pill isn't "beta"

Why are TRPers so against feminist?

Plainly not neutral, these argue their claims in the title and are full of suppositions.

Now some "removed" examples where it is difficult to find offending "suppositions about the thought process of all those [I'm] speaking to":

Are women stupid? Are attractive women stupider?

Does the "concern troll policy" prevent reasonable criticism? What would be so offensive that TRP would not endorse it?

What's wrong with this apparently-blue pill idea? "its the woman's choice to have sex, regardless of what the man wants." (+43)

Does /u/soulcakeduck think /u/redpillschool [+12] "is not in favor of raping women?"

Rape should not be a crime because it does not cause economic damage it once did' is a recurring thought in TRP (Followup to ROK comment widely decried as isolated)

Can women empathize? An anecdote of how TRP misuses anecdotes

If anything, the bad (but not rule-breaking) part of these titles is that they avoid supposing much of anything at all, because I tried to comply with moderator demands for submission titles even though they are bad requirements. This very neutrality rule is responsible for the most awkward titles, since I'm told titles must ask questions and make no suppositions (which is not even possible).

Another problem: remember those highlighted examples from the criterion screenshot? Well, the only title I took the time to explicitly defend in modmail was

"How important is radical violence in TRP?" does not assume radical violence is important in TRP. It seems to fit exactly with your requirements. Yet you said it is rule-breaking.

and mods agreed,

First- you're correct, the "How important is radical violence in TRP?" phrasing would be ok. That was an oversight on my part when reading your response

I don't see how this is substantively different from any of the other examples either. But it is noteworthy that the only time I defend a title's neutrality mods are forced to agree; how easily are they making these oversights elsewhere, then?

Mods have good intentions here. They're not out to get anyone. However I do think they're prone to assuming people don't want to debate. In particular, my interest in debate is largely focused on hearing others' thoughts about what might be the worst parts of TRP: are they as bad as I imagine? do they see rationales justifying these harms? how pervasive are these problems if at all?--Yet, I think moderators view this focus on moral problems as evidence of "trolling," trying to put users on the "defensive" and "attack" TRP. That kind of ignores the adversarial nature of debates, but no one must defend any "problem" I find here; I'm thrilled when they instead agree they're problems and offer other input.

I noted last time that this neutrality enforcement elects TRP to speak authoritatively while denying TBP the ability to conclude anything. Here we see that it also effectively discourages debating morality, focusing debates on only facts.

===

We've seen a serious and unannounced shift. What was praiseworthy 3 months ago is banworthy today. Mods are struggling to weigh their suppositions about intent against the available evidence, and struggling to separate their suppositions from the "neutrality" (if it ever was that) requirement.

We need clarified rule guidelines so that users and mods alike know what to expect. Otherwise, we're all rule breakers awaiting moderator discretion.