New rules. New sidebar.

mrsamsa · 2014-01-22T23:58:55+00:00

Thanks for this thread, and I agree with soulcakeduck that the removal of the neutrality and question rules is probably a good move. I also like rules 1 and 6.

As for the hands-off moderating, I'm not sure how that will turn out but I understand the difficulty in figuring out the best moderating approach for a sub. In my opinion, I think the best style is something more like "limited moderating", where only posts that break the rules are removed and mods don't attempt to step outside the rules.

To me, I understand that mods have the best intentions but often when it comes down to subjective decisions being made outside of objectively defined rules, errors and inconsistencies start to be made. And I'm not accusing mods of any specific biases here but I've moderated massive forums before and I just understand that even good intentions can go wrong.

If a mod thinks something should be against the rules even though it currently isn't, I think a discussion with the membership (or at least the rest of the mods) should be had about the possibility of implementing such a rule.

Possible suggestion for a new rule: I don't know how popular this will be, or how much more work it would be for the mods, but I remember a while ago there was a red piller who was making big claims without backing them up and getting snarky with people asking for evidence (it might have been Pizzaonearth before his demise), and Spartacus basically put his mod hat on and told him that he either had to provide evidence or shut up.

I thought this could be a great tool for mods to have in a debate sub like this, as a lot of flamewars and insults (in my experience) stem from frustration on both sides - the blue pillers because RPers won't provide evidence, and the red pillers because the BPers keep asking for evidence of "obvious" things.

If it were possible to have a rule like: If you have the burden of proof and you're asked to support a claim you've made, then you have to support it or concede the point. It could work similarly to how /r/askscience demands users to provide research to back up their claims made.

And, to be clear, I don't think any standards of quality should be assigned to the evidence needed to support a claim and it doesn't even need to be scientific evidence, an attempt at a logical argument will do.

The point isn't to demand that users only speak the truth but rather to get them to provide something that can actually be debated. If someone makes a claim but only supports it with a Psychology Today article, well at least I can then criticise the claims and evidence contained within the PT article. If someone simply says: "It's my experience so it must be true" then all discussion and debate immediately ends because nothing constructive or meaningful can come from that.

Just a suggestion though.

masterrod · 2014-01-23T00:54:29+00:00

Can you expound dick and circle jerk?

*I'm serious, i just don't know how to ask these questions.

LeaneGenova · 2014-01-22T23:22:27+00:00

Our new approach is going to be mostly hands-off

I'm not sure we can be trusted to behave without moderation. Hopefully, the community proves me wrong, but I have my doubts.

Thanks for listening to the complaints from everyone and trying to come up with a functional set of rules.

Zackcid · 2014-01-24T21:25:24+00:00

Can you mention something about the no downvoting rule? It was a big deal and was even stickied for a while, but no mention about it in the sidebar.

sh1v · 2014-01-26T17:04:02+00:00

Our new approach is going to be mostly hands-off

This does not bode well to me. Even with hands-on moderation, a few trolls were slipping through the cracks. I've also seen a metric ton of ad hominem, everything from thinly veiled to naked aggro. If moderation gets too lax, the gloves will come off for sure.

soulcakeduck · 2014-01-22T23:15:51+00:00

Hoora, the death of the word "neutral." I hope this means
(1) we're not longer "required" to ask questions in titles.
(2) titles can assume things.
Our current top assumes there's a red pill idea that honor is a male-only construct. And doesn't ask a question. And should be fine.

Really appreciate that you're going for broad rules so that you can point to a reason when stuff is removed, rather than specific rules where a given violation might not be indicated anywhere.

TehGinjaNinja · 2014-01-30T15:53:09+00:00

Rule #1 and #7 are still showing a clear anti-masculine bias on the part of "the mod team". I'm not sure why you'd expect people who value masculinity to waste their time on a sub that is so clearly hostile to it.

Title	New rules. New sidebar.
Author	alphabetmod
Upvotes	9
Comments	73
Date	January 22, 2014 7:42 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1vvizv/new_rules_new_sidebar/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/new-rules-new-sidebar.286334 https://theredarchive.com/post/286334

Comments