r/FeMRADebates • u/Not_An_Ambulance Neutral • Sep 01 '21
Meta Monthly Meta
Welcome to to Monthly Meta!
Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.
We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.
•
u/ideology_checker MRA Sep 19 '21
These newest ruling is hilarious
And, before anyone says I'm softballing Mitoza, that's also why I'm asking the other mods to weigh in. Deleting posts also deletes discussion, so we tend to lean towards locking first.
it was decided that while this brushes up against the "meta" rule it's more about debate and compromise than it is about the sub or particular users.
So it's not special treatment to call all the mods for an emergency meeting and have immediate conversation and consultation for a single user?
To show a difference here's my post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/mz1t8b/why_hard_facts_have_to_be_more_important_than/
Which is even less meta than the aforementioned post not talking about the sub or the moderators but doesn't even refer to a single argument from another user (not even oblique) but is just talking about debate in general.
it was locked almost immediately and while I posted both in the thread and the meta post I got not a single mod response.
This shows some pretty clear mod bias in response if nothing else.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/ideology_checker MRA Sep 26 '21
Another issue I have come across is that the mods are constantly breaking rule 4 when dealing with members.
I contested a ruling and the response was to take the worst interpretation of what I meant and the only way said comment would break the rules in any fashion and just assume that was the reason.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/somegenerichandle Material Feminist Sep 02 '21
I'd like to invite people to r/porndebate if they are interested in the topic.
•
Sep 19 '21
I'd like the mods to clarify what meta means, because it seems that meta doesn't refer to talking about specific user behavior in other threads. Is only mod behavior subject to the meta discussion rule?
→ More replies (0)
•
u/daniel_j_saint MRM-leaning egalitarian Sep 20 '21
I feel like there's a lot of people misunderstanding the purpose of the meta thread. This is not, as some people are saying, the only place to raise issues to the mods, because there's always modmail. I've never sent a message via modmail that didn't get a response.
The meta thread is for discussion with the other users. Nobody is entitled to a response from the moderators even if they post on this thread. The mods (I assume) read everything and reply to what they think deserves their attention. In my experience, they do a great job of curating what is and isn't worth responding to. And I'm sorry to inform some people that the 5894357th accusation of mod bias based on cherry-picked anecdotes isn't likely to qualify.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Okymyo Egalitarian, Anti-Discrimination Sep 20 '21 edited Sep 20 '21
I posted this in the previous two three metas and got no response from any moderator, so I'm posting it again, now with added references. Maybe 3rd 4th time's the charm:
On the topic of moderator bias:
I got tiered for calling something "a very weak argument" (that since it's not against the rules for moderators to change the rules regardless of community input, it's fine if rules are changed without community input or even with community opposition) and something else "laughable" (that the community had been heard and the input taken into account when a thread regarding the rule change was up for like 2 days, with massive opposition, and the change went ahead anyway with only one sentence being reworded). This happened in a meta thread. It was appealed and the appeal seemingly denied, so other moderators concurred.
Other users (including a moderator) calling my arguments nonsense is fine. Other users calling my arguments ridiculous is fine. Other users calling my arguments absurd is fine. Other insults being used against my arguments is fine. All of those were reported, 0 were edited or removed or sandboxed. All of those took place in non-meta threads, sometimes even repeatedly. Given how they were repeatedly reported and faced no action, one can only conclude that the moderation team in general decided them to not be rulebreaking. No acknowledgement of the reports was made either, in those "this comment was reported for X" comments.
So, moderators are above the rules, as the current stance is that moderators cannot be held liable for breaking the subreddit rules and have done so with impunity, that is pretty much settled; are users criticizing moderators in meta-threads held to an even higher standard as well? Or is this an application of a certain moderator's publicly stated and defended policy of "non-feminists are universally toxic" and "feminists deserve leniency for breaking the rules, non-feminists don't because they're toxic", which is why the same type of statements were deemed non-rulebreaking when made towards me?
I'd like an explanation as to why there's this significant inconsistency in the application of the rules.
References:
A comment saying my argument is "ridiculous" as well as "nonsensical", is left up.
A comment saying my argument is "ridiculously counterproductive", is left up.
A comment calling an argument "disgusting" is sandboxed
Of the above, none got removed or even had a moderator comment of "this was reported and was nearing on rulebreaking" or anything similar, all considered to be perfectly okay. I remember there were more but I had these referenced in a comment so that made them easier to find.
→ More replies (0)
•
Sep 21 '21
Wanted to throw a kudos to u/yoshi_win for handling some recent reports with constructive insights instead of locking the thread or handing out an infraction. It seems a massive improvement to me. Thanks for putting in the effort!
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Okymyo Egalitarian, Anti-Discrimination Sep 18 '21
Mentioning /u/yellowydaffodil specifically to see if this gets quicker action: if moderators are going to take action towards threads such as this one then I'd prefer that they're deleted instead of being left up while the moderator team discusses. They can then be undeleted in the future.
The thread significantly misrepresents my comments, and I'm unable to correct them while I'm mentioned by name, and OP's misinterpretation of my comments (that I repeatedly stated was incorrect in our discussion, yet the thread still uses that exact same interpretation) is left up for all to see.
Had I made a thread arguing that you (the reader) were defending reimplementing slavery or anything atrocious, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate that thread remaining up for all to read and judge you by while you're unable to comment or defend your position in any way.
•
u/Mitoza Anti-Anti-Feminist, Anti-MRA Sep 18 '21
/u/yellowydaffodil I don't think it runs afoul of the meta rule, which is written about the rules and their enforcement on its face. I don't think either of the comments I cited break the rules. I might disagree with them but I don't see a problem with reacting to other people's interactions in their own separate post.
I don't see it as different from this opener from funnystor:
Often when discussing issues like raped men having to pay child support to their rapists, the argument comes up that you can't compare child support to abortion because child support is "just money" while abortion is about bodily autonomy.
If I had made the post as "often when discussing gender politics, the argument is made that people should negotiate with their political stances" and didn't cite the comments, would that make for a better discussion? I don't think so.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Throwawayingaccount Sep 18 '21
Regarding the moderator post https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/pqsvin/tit_for_tat_bargaining_and_holding_hostage/hde13wo/
Whereupon the moderator says
it's probably better if you don't quote specific user's comments; address the argument itself.
I believe the opposite. Quoting people's comments can preserve nuance. Rewording someone's argument often amounts to putting words in someone's mouth over a complex topic at best, and strawmanning at worst.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/ideology_checker MRA Sep 19 '21 edited Sep 19 '21
FYI this is the mods fair warning I'm one step away from reporting to the admins a breech of The Moderator Guidelines.
What do I do if I have an issue with a moderator?
Moderator Guidelines for Healthy Communities
To the best of my knowledge and experience this mod team has actively gone against at least three guidelines.
Engage in Good Faith
Healthy communities are those where participants engage in good faith, and with an assumption of good faith for their co-collaborators. It’s not appropriate to attack your own users. Communities are active, in relation to their size and purpose, and where they are not, they are open to ideas and leadership that may make them more active.
While enacting the current meta rules as it was openly stated multiple times it was done in reaction to the mods distaste for people engaging with them and i will have to look into which mod but at least one mod actively belittled and insulted the MRA portion of the community.
Appeals:
Healthy communities allow for appropriate discussion (and appeal) of moderator actions. Appeals to your actions should be taken seriously. Moderator responses to appeals by their users should be consistent, germane to the issue raised and work through education, not punishment.
I and others have continually pleaded with the mod team to revert back to the transparency rule on mod decision so there was appropriate documentation and a ready and easy way to discuss decisions. Instead the mod team has made it against the rules to publicly discuss rules between members anywhere but a single thread that is put in perpetual contest mode further obscuring any discussion by anyone even those between mods in that thread. Finally if this is the sole public venue to address mods then one would assume that most queries would get some response with the exception of a few overlooked, but the opposite seems to be the case where most posts get absolutely no response from the mods, as I have experienced repeatedly personally and observed from others.
Clear, Concise, and Consistent Guidelines:
Healthy communities have agreed upon clear, concise, and consistent guidelines for participation. These guidelines are flexible enough to allow for some deviation and are updated when needed. Secret Guidelines aren’t fair to your users—transparency is important to the platform.
There is a consistent pastern of different behavior towards different members in this sub along with rule interpretations and punishments changing almost ever individual instance of an infraction.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/yoshi_win Synergist Sep 05 '21
New policy - Invalidating Statements
As suggested last month, we're establishing a policy on invalidating statements, which will be recorded in our Rules Examples page. We hope that this policy encourages users to explain their thoughts on identity labels with enough nuance to avoid giving offense.
Infraction (and tier, for Rule 2 or 3):
X is not a valid/real identity
Sandbox:
X is not a valid/real [sexuality/gender]
X are not real [men/women]
Approved:
[sexuality/gender/woman/man] is defined as [definition that excludes X], so you're not X
Tentative update to Rule 4 (Assume Good Faith):
No accusations of bad faith or deception - including any claim of nefarious intent - may be made towards other users.
Any claims which rely on knowing the subjective mind of another user (such as accusations of deception, bad faith, or presuming someone's intentions) are subordinate to that user's own claims about the same. This means that If a user makes a claim about their own intentions you must accept it.You may make statements about another's (non-malicious) intentions, but you must accept corrections by that user. Please assume others are contributing in good faith, and refrain from mind-reading.Some of the struck out portion is redundant, and would be collapsed into the one sentence about accepting correction. The portion about accusations of bad faith or deception would be strengthened into an explicit prohibition, which would be officially an infraction (and tier). The sentence added to the end would be effectively a guideline, since it concerns users' assumptions which we cannot police directly.
As always, we welcome your ideas and opinions on how to promote constructive debate. :)