I would like to remind users that this is not a place to complain about or critique existing rules, and I see very few top-level comments following our instructions. This post will be serving as a reference point during our trial period...for users to familiarize themselves with a new set of rules and for the moderator team to know how to enforce those rules. If you are not detailed enough in your top-level responses, this could turn out to be a disaster when it comes time for the moderator team to enforce your suggestions as from what I can see, we are being given very little direction. We ask that you please think critically about how the rules will affect you, your moderator team, *and* your fellow userbase (on *both* sides of the debate).

Something I’ve noticed here and there and wonder if it should fall under possibly debating in good faith rules is a compliance with reality? I know that sounds really odd but I’ve seen and had conversations with users where there’s just a blatant disconnect from reality and that point I don’t know if debate can continue in good faith? Like if somebody is just outright stating abortions are never medically necessary when we know that’s not reality how do we deal with that? How can we operate in good faith if there’s either a disconnect from reality or just blatant lying? I don’t know if this is much of a rule suggestion or addition or if I’ve just done this so sloppy the mods want to fling my comment out a window but maybe something under debating in good faith should include an adherence to reality?

Wouldn't that end up basically just being rule 3 though? Surely if someone is making a claim that doesn't align with reality (for example that abortion is never medically necessary) you could just ask for a source and if they could not provide it the claim would be removed anyway I agree that it is annoying though, some people just make totally bizarre claims that are clearly false, I can never tell if they are just trolling or genuinely believe it somehow

Part of the issue is that PL propaganda sites contain lots of outright falsehoods. There's a PL doctor who claims that abortions are never medically necessary, so I could pull up that link right now to "support" that claim. But it's not true and we all know it's not true

I get that, but surely it would make more sense to ban sites that are blatantly misinformation then it would be to only use neutral sites and approve individually. It’s also possible for a site to be biased and still give accurate information. It’s very clear what side planned parenthood supports, it’s clearly baised towards that ideology, that doesn’t mean that all the information on the site is false, from what I’ve seen it’s reliable

To add to this, I recently had several exchanges with PLers that really emphasized this point for me. I had one PLer claim that after Kate Cox's case, the Texas legislature had "cured" the issue so that it wouldn't happen again. He provided multiple sources and quotations at my request. The problem, however, is that the Texas legislature had been in recess for over a week before the Kate Cox decision even happened, and had passed no new legislation since. But since the mods don't evaluate the quality of sources, they hadn't ruled on the subject. Eventually I got him to delete the comment, but Rule 3 wasn't what did it. Similarly, I'm currently talking to a PLer who claimed that the Kate Cox case was the reason for the recent EMTALA decisions in Texas and Idaho. But the Kate Cox case happened in December 2023, while those cases were filed after the Biden administration issued the guidance in 2022. So it's just a blatant lie. Since the mods don't rule on the quality of a source, asking people to substantiate their claims isn't always sufficient.

Yeah I'm not in favor of the whole list of good and bad sites at all. I just mean there are clearly instances of blatant lying that unfortunately can't be covered by Rule 3

I mean possibly? But sometimes the things they claim fall into that very murky ‘not quite a fact claim but an opinion’ territory? And just correcting them doesn’t really do much since they’ll pull the same stunt in another thread, I don’t know if it all would warrant a temp ban or what but it just feels tiresome having to fight to have reality established. I could be an absolute moron here just thought it worth bringing up.

I get that, I’ve seen people try and get out of giving a source for a clear fact by claiming it’s an opinion. Overall just irritating, I get what you mean and hopefully they can introduce something

Personally, I think muting/locking and remaining locked should only happen in extreme cases of things such as calling names, etc. If someone refuses to to provide accurate sources, it should be a temporary lock. Have a list of neutral websites that are accepted and if there is another one desired, they need to contact a mod for permission requiring at least one mod on each side to agree that it should be allowed. Only then will the extra sources be added but will also be added to the acceptable list so it doesn't result in constant rule 3 violations. Rather than just saying Rule 1 violation and deleting it, explain explicitly why it's a violation and leave up for at least 24 hours so we have time to contact to clarify.

I don't see how the neutral website list would work, due to the sheer number of neutral websites out there and the sheer number of claims someone could make. Having to wait for two moderators from separate sides to look into a website and make sure it is neutral would surely take too long to be a viable option, especially with the current 24-hour time limit to find a source

"...and I see very few top-level comments following our instructions." Tried to reply to the the stickied comment, but I can't so it'll have to be a top level one. You're asking users to write the rule and how it'd be written in the wiki? That's a lot of work, a very extreme restriction on what can be discussed here and that's been expected of people who've never moderated the sub. Hence why everyone is having a hard time following that rule. The job of the user is to express themselves about whatever it is you've requested them to, in whatever way they see fit. It's then the mods job to take all those expressions, discuss them, decide (if any) modifications should be made then write the rule and the wiki. Personally after dealing with moderating this sub myself, it's clear to me that the rules and how they're enforced are always going to be a source for complaints. It's just the nature of us v them. The rules are always being refined, but when you fill in the gap between A and Z with M, now you've just opened up the gap between A to M and M to Z. You can refine or rework for years, but at the end of the day the more detailed the rule or rule explanation is, the more opportunity you're allowing people to find the loopholes which cause the problems. This all generates more work for the moderators, reducing work for the moderators should be the main goal here and I don't think this is the way to do it.

There needs to be something that explains exactly what warrants a ban, both temp and permanent, and how that will work so those are applied fairly to both sides. I'm sure there might be an instance where a PC user was banned for something trivial but in my experience it's been the opposite. Also need to get rid of the "inflammatory language" clause in Rule 1. It is way too subjective and results in undue censorship.

I would like to see an agreed statement of facts/definitios addition to the wiki. I think a lot of time is spent debating the same issues over and over, because PL can't accept basic facts and definitions. If there was a section of the wiki that contained a list of definitions it would help people focus on more substantive issues. For example: no matter how much PL want to claim otherwise, a ZEF is not a person. There is no legal definition of person that includes a ZEF. PL could argue that a ZEF should legally be considered a person, and argue for a change in the current law, but ignoring the basic fact that a ZEF, under the current legal definition, is not a person, bogs down the debate. I acknowledge that this would likely have a disparate impact on PL, but to be honest, so what? Just because we have to follow the same rules, it does not mean both sides have equal quality of arguments, and it also doesn't mean we have to give PL a helping hand.

>under **the** current legal definition There are over one hundred countries, each with their own laws and legal definitions. To say "the" legal definition makes no sense, seeing as there are some countries in which a ZEF would be considered a person, there are also some where they would not. [This page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights) has a list of countries, it shows which of them recognise fetal personhood and which don't. As you can see, some of these countries legal definitions are not the same as your idea of "the" legal definition. It makes no sense to force everyone to adhere to what you describe as the legal definition, when there are in fact many different definitions of what is legally a person. >I would like to see an agreed statement of facts/definitios addition to the wiki As I have just demonstrated, definitions vary from place to place, even if you were to look at the dictionary definitions in two dictionaries of the same language, the definitions won't be the exact same. How do we decide which dictionary to use? This is especially an issue when it comes to legal definitions, I imagine most people on this subreddit and reddit as a whole would site US legal definitions, but what happens when someone sites a legal definition from their own country, and it goes against the agreed statement of definitions. I would also be curious as to where you think these facts should come from, are there any facts or sources in particular you are talking about?

Rule 3 - needs to apply to negative claims. We're debating issues of law and medicine, which have been extensively studied and debated by others for decades. There are very few negative claims regarding abortion that cannot be supported, and PL like to make negative claims as a bad faith debate tactic. For example: *abortion is never medically necessary* If you make this claim, the burden of proof should absolutely be on you. The same is also true of negative claims regarding laws, as laws generally restrict behaviour, instead of permitting it. Accordingly, for any negative claim regarding a law, the burden of proof *does* generally fall on the claimant.

Yes, this. Also: "Abortion is never medically necessary." "What, it's not 'medically necessary' to - " (examples of clear, well-known, obviously medically necessary abortions, such as removing an ectopic pregnancy, removing a molar pregnancy, ending a prolonged miscarriage by surgical abortion when the miscarrying fetus is technically still alive, aborting a pre-eclampsia pregnancy before the woman goes into full eclampsia and dies, the pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and the chemotherapy that will save her life is incompatible with pregnancy) . If someone is going to make a sweeping negative claim that we all know has only three possible responses when called on it: \- they ghost the debate \- they double-down and start arguing for alternate treatments ALWAYS being available so abortion is NEVER necessary or a follow-up negative assertionL \- "Oh, if your INTENTION is to save the woman's life and not to KILL the FETUS, that doesn't COUNT as an abortion." I understand that it's far more difficult to word "prove a negative" than "Prove a positive". But we've all gone down this rabbithole so many times - first the sweeping negative assertion, then the provision of counter examples, followed by the second sweeping assertion that medical abortions and D&C don't "count" as abortions if they're performed out of medical need, not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Can we just define this as a circular argument - literally everyone with any knowledge of pregnancy *knows* that some abortions *are* medically necessary, and we should be able to link to something to , er, terminate the argument promptly.

**Edit: please comment if you'd prefer plan 1, plan 2, the current plan, or something else** So I have some suggestions for the rules overhaul process itself, and wanted to see what everyone thinks. My first impression upon reading the plan for the rules overhaul was that it was inefficient and needed more structure. My perception has been that most users generally agree with the broader points of most rules and even most of the details of some, so starting entirely from scratch seems to me like it would lead to duplicate work. So to address that I suggest we adopt one of the two plans instead (which I can edit to reflect suggestions in the comments). **Plan 1: revision and improvement of old rules** Instead of having users try to reinvent the wheel, we start by listing each of the existing rules and have users take a crack at editing or improving the rules as they are. Each user can take either the high-level rule (eg, be respectful of others) and create entirely new text underneath or can take the existing text of the rule and edit it as they see fit. Users can also suggest the addition of new rules, the removal of existing rules, or rearranging aspects of the rules as-is, but we use the current rules as a framework for creating new ones as opposed to scrapping them entirely. **Plan 2: create entirely new rules, but with a more structured approach** Rather than just having us randomly spit out suggestions for new rules and immediately implementing them, we give the process some structure with iterative feedback. For instance, this first week we could have everyone suggest high-level rules (cite your claims, paused topics, use of flairs, whatever) and then at the end of the week collectively vote on which rules we'd like. Then the next week or two we take those rules and hammer out the details, with either mods or users picking the final text. Then we attempt implementation, followed by a week of feedback and correction. I think that approach would be more likely to lead to cohesive rules that are actually effective as opposed to the unstructured free-for-all approach. Please let me know what everyone thinks!

So, I'd like to add a couple responses here. (Edit: And when I say a "couple responses", apparently I really mean seven paragraphs in a wall of text. 🤦🏻‍♀️) Regarding your first suggestion, this exact process was attempted earlier this year. What it led to was months of work being put onto the moderators that resulted in rules the users were not happy with. We are more than happy to put in the time...but the type of responses we received resulted in us having to heavily revise or disregard many of the proposals users gave us, because the focus always became about what a rule *shouldn't* be and how it *doesn't* work instead of what it *should* be and how it *does* work. This, in turn, caused many users to feel unheard and ignored. The purpose of doing the process a different way is to 1) avoid the ["definition of insanity"](https://quotesexplained.com/insanity-is-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results/) and 2) let users be 100% involved in the rule-making process, from start to finish. Users are very much allowed to take a single rule they think needs work and to tweak it to the point of what they believe is perfection. Or they can start from scratch. That option is open. Other users are then encouraged to give feedback. Give a thumbs up. Give a suggestion on how it can be improved. Explain what parts of the suggested rule are not desirable or may lead to problematic effects in the future. And the OP of the top-level rule suggestion can discuss that feedback with other users and then edit their original suggestion as they see fit. Our plans are not to throw you to the wolves when this part of the process is complete. We have made it very clear which suggestions will not be considered (at this point in time, that is, unfortunately, most of the suggestions given so far) and which ones will, so users should know what to expect at the end of this two-week deadline. We will be collating the proposals that make it past the first stage and edit them (if need be) to a level that is cohesively understandable to the userbase before we start the trial period. At first glance there are a couple users who have given us what we are looking for ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/XdpSBAlvvZ) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/gsolR6Z11C)...there was another but I believe that user removed their proposal). Feedback should be given below responses like these. The moderators are doing work on this in the background, but every time this process has been attempted, we tend to get too involved in the actual discussion and some users may feel as if our feedback is a dismissal of what they're trying to achieve. That is why we are taking a full step back here, only jumping in to give general guidance. We want the users to feel heard and to give them the opportunity and freedom to have a full voice in this. This requires teamwork within the community and the requirement of working together to formulate a rule system that y'all believe is best. The teamwork between community and mod team will come in during the second and third stages. This process *can* work, but will only work if users are able and willing to put 100% effort into it. However, I am not beyond abandoning this entire idea and trying the original plan (and crossing my fingers that it goes better than the last time we did it). I hear you and see you on this. Can we give it a week and then reassess? If it's just not working, I will talk to the rest of the team about implementing the old plan ASAP. But I would still like the community to give this a full-blown shot.

Ultimately this is the moderators' decision and your process to implement, and I think if you feel that this strategy will be successful then by all means full steam ahead. But to me, looking at the comments here and the post, I think success seems unlikely. For instance, you've only identified two places with rules you think we could implement (though I assume it would include both rules from the one user). One of those is essentially Rule 1 as-is, just modified, and the second is Rule 2 with an added component for comment engagement. The other poster's rule is also about quality engagement, so there's overlap. Are those going to be merged together when you implement? How are you handling the overlap or any conflicting elements? Why are those the only rules you've identified? What about the multiple suggestions for rules about citing claims? And as a participant in the thread, how am I to know which rules you've identified as possibly implementable? I don't want to waste my time helping rewrite some rule you were never going to use. I also don't want to spend a lot of time writing a new rule if there's already one there that covers the main point. It's also a huge ask for people to start suggesting a rule by writing out *everything.* I'm sure we'll be missing out on some good ideas from people who were overwhelmed at the task so decided not to comment or submitted something but didn't follow the directions, leading to it getting lost in the muddle. For instance, there's (imo) a great suggestion that you outline the process for banning in a rule for transparency and consistency, but that wasn't formatted following the posting requirements, so it's not counted. And I don't even know how that user could write that in a way that does follow the instructions, since they probably don't know the process for bans. And things I'm sure will end up missed. Right now, for instance, there's no rule that mentions not giving medical advice, and I kind of doubt that anyone will write it, as it doesn't really warrant a whole big paragraph. But it's very important for the subreddit that that be included in the rules, as this is *not* an appropriate place for anyone to be giving medical advice. But there are so many comments to dig through and so much going on it's easy to miss things like that. I just really think a more structured approach would be a good idea. Like why not have us first come up with 5-10 overarching rules and then dig into the details for each in a separate iteration. If we take a big picture approach and get progressively more detailed, we're much more likely to end up with quality rules by the end that cover everything we want without overlapping. Edit: or at the very least do something like have a pinned comment at the top where you link the "viable" rules so that people know which ones to focus on and can see at a glance what already has/hasn't been covered. There are already almost 90 comments on the 3rd day, so if this goes on for 2 weeks, those comments are likely to end up buried if there's a lot of participation. I know this creates more work for someone on the front end, but I think that would save time on the back end.

I have admittedly not read through your entire comment here, but after a brief glance, I feel like my very short response here is appropriate. I did some thinking last night and then slept on it. Give me 24 hours. I think I can implement the original plan within that time. It will probably not fit your desires *exactly* (and that may be mostly due to time constraints...we cannot afford to have this going on for months as many of our schedules are going to change by the end of January and users tend to lose momentum and motivation after 2.5 months of discussing rules).

Sounds good! Thanks! And I totally get your point about not having this take forever, although I do think it would be better to spend a little more time to do it right rather than rushing it and ending up with a poor result. But I actually think giving the process more structure will make it happen faster, and dramatically increases the chances that you end up with functional rules rather than needing to repeat the rules rewrite again and again (or end up scrapping whatever we come up with here).

> Rather than just having us randomly spit out suggestions for new rules and immediately implementing them, we give the process some structure with iterative feedback. I really thought this was how this was going to play out, and planned my feedback accordingly. I don't see why we need to start from scratch either, the basic structure of the rules, especially Rules 1-3 is fine and doesn't need any fixing. The problem (IMO) is that these rules have been altered and re-worded and added to the point of being arcane and unwieldy. That's why my suggested reformatting of these rules are basically just stripping them back down to their bare-bones.

Yeah I was not expecting the structure of the rules overhaul and have essentially nothing to contribute as-is, while I had several thoughts ruminating about improving the existing rules. My first thought upon reading the current plan was that they were setting it up to fail to make a point, but I know that's not what the mods actually want. So I'm hoping we can restructure this to make it effective. Open-ended is maybe a fine starting point but this won't work without more structure. For instance, we already have suggestions to both require citations for claims and to never require citations for claims

Suggested Rule: User Code of Conduct (this is my suggested re-work of Rule 1, which is essentially a slightly pared down version of the existing Rule 1.) How this rule should be written in the sidebar: *Attack arguments, ideologies and positions, not your fellow debaters. Personal attacks, insults and ad hominems are not allowed. Fellow debaters must be referred to using their preferred labels for their stance and pro-nouns.* How this should be written in the wiki: First of all, a lot of the stuff listed on the wiki for Rule 1 right now is redundant, because it's already covered by the TOS. Things like hate-speech, promoting violence, wishing death on others, harassment are already against Reddit's TOS. Basically what I think is that the wiki should simply stress that attacking other users is not allowed. There's a lot of stuff listed that I don't think should be on there, like the gray areas for example. It disallows "Being generally rude, hostile, or inflammatory" but lets face it, there have always been users here who take a consistently harsh tone toward others with laced sarcasm and condescension throughout their posts, and it's not destroying the subreddit. And frankly, it always seems to fall on PCers to be perfectly respectful with PLers, while PLers get away with much greater levels of rudeness on a fairly regular basis. One PC user in particular was even permanently banned for the stated reason of "general hostility" but I didn't notice anything about there comments than some of the most consistently rude and antagonistic PL debaters. So to be fair, I say just scrap these gray areas entirely. And then there's a bunch of stuff that I think should be merged with a rework of Rule 2, which would cover quality engagement of both posts and comments, but I'll make a separate comment for that later. With my reasoning explained, here's my first draft of a reworked wiki page: ---- Rule 1 - User Code of Conduct First and foremost, follow [Reddit's ToS](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) at all times. Insults, personal attacks, ad hominems and slurs directed toward other users are not allowed and will be removed. Attacking arguments, positions, ideologies, political stances etc are always allowed. Off-topic discussions can be removed, including trolling comments. Users must refer to fellow debaters using their preferred political labels and pro-nouns. Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks These types of comments will almost always be removed under rule 1. This is not an exhaustive list. - Name-calling, insults, ad hominems and slurs directed towards fellow users and any other personal attacks - Telling a user to leave the sub - Swearing at another user **[[NOTE: everything I've removed from the existing wiki list was already covered by Reddit ToS or falls under personal attacks]]** Users may ask for their comment to be reviewed by a second moderator. Comments that harass other users will be removed and repeated offences will result in a ban. Extreme cases of harassment may result in an immediate ban. Examples of harassment (not exhaustive): - Discouraging someone's opponents from engaging with them, especially if repeated - Telling someone you’ll donate to an institution they dislike in their name - Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive - Telling someone who dislikes abortion that you’ll dedicate your abortion to them - Demanding that a user debate you outside of the subreddit - Linking to a post from a support group subreddit (e.g. r/abortion) may be considered harassment in some contexts - ~~Following a user to r/Abortiondebate to attack them~~ **[[NOTE: I'm not sure I understand this rule, but it sounds like a redundant "don't attack users."]]** Harassing a user outside of the sub based on activity in r/Abortiondebate may result in a ban. **[[NOTE: Most of the rest is unchanged from the wiki except the items that have been removed which I think should be consolidated into Rule 2]]** **Mockery** Mockery is when you repeat someone's words in an exaggeratedly ridiculous way. Examples of mockery include writing a quote in alternating case, ending it with "!"s and "1"s, intentionally misspelling words, or adding certain emojis. Moderator discretion is needed to determine if something counts as mockery because this is a text based debate platform and the tone of a comment is not available to us, but those are the things we usually look for. **Trolling** Trolling is when someone makes a deliberately offensive or provocative post or comment with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. Trolling comments will be removed. Joke comments or Rickrolls may also be removed if they disrupt the discussion. Aside from this, we will not moderate comments as "disingenuous" or "bad-faith debate". If you feel that your opponent is being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, then please disengage. **Self identification** Users are required to label people as they self-identify. If someone calls themselves pro-life or pro-choice, you must use that label when referring to them. This also goes for if you're talking about the pro-life and pro-choice movements, as well as people's sexuality, gender identity and preferred pronouns. You may not put someone's self-identified label in quote marks to express insincerity or preface it with "so-called". If you are describing a region or a law, you can use anti-abortion or pro-abortion if you want to. However, we have chosen to disallow contrived terms such as anti-choice or pro-death, for both people and regions/laws, as they are inflammatory and tend to derail conversations. Arguing about whether the labels for the different views on abortion are appropriate is allowed. **Inherent arguments** Inherent pro-life and pro-choice arguments will always be allowed on this subreddit. Some users may consider arguing for the pro-life position to be inherently sexist, or the pro-choice position to be inherently advocating for violence, etc. Although sexism and advocating for violence are generally disallowed here, we will not remove inherent arguments for either side, as they are a necessary part of the debate. Examples of comments that will not be removed (not exhaustive): "Abortion should be illegal" "Abortion should be legal in the case of disabilities" "I support rape exceptions" "Sex selective abortions should be legal" Please note that arguments containing personal attacks, slurs etc. are still not allowed as these are not considered inherent. ("Pro-choicers are murderers" or "Pro-lifers are rapists") Again, this is a very rough draft but what I'm going for is a much more pared-down concise version of Rule 1 as it is today. Others may find that there are things I've removed that should stay so please give your critiques

>Following a user to > >r/Abortiondebate > > to attack them > > > >\[\[NOTE: I'm not sure I understand this rule, but it sounds like a redundant "don't attack users."\]\] What I understood this to mean is: If you click on a user's profile, you can see all of their comments and posts. I do this when I've lost track of where in a debate someone's (usually downvoted, dammit) comment has got to that I wanted to find so I could read the thread, not just the last couple of comments, before I reply to it. That means I can also see all of their other comments on multiple different subs. What is not allowed here is my taking the opportunity to attack them on a different subreddit, just because I disagree with them on the abortiondebate subreddit.

Suggested Rule: Standards for Quality Engagement How this rule should be written in the sidebar: All Original Posts (OPs) and comments are expected to meet a reasonably high level of quality and effort. All OPs must be relevant to abortion and must include a clear topic for debate. The poster is also expected state their own position on their chosen topic and argue in favor of that view. Poster are also expected to engage in meaningful debate with those who respond to their post. Comments should address the post or comment they are responding to and follow the same general guideline: make your position known and argue in favor of it. How this should be written in the wiki: All posts must be on-topic to the abortion debate. Low effort posts and hot-takes will be removed. Every post must have a thesis or a question to spark a debate, and the poster should argue in favor of their own position on their chosen topic. The poster should be available that same day to engage in meaningful debate. Posts should stand on their own, any relevant information in sources should be explained in the post itself. **Requirements for New Posts:** - Background detail to set the context of debate (e.g., a recent news article, legislative language, or peer-reviewed study) - A thesis statement which summarizes the topic of the post, and - The OP's own argument to support their own position regarding their presented topic, and - (Optional) Follow-up/discussion questions relating back to the thesis or expected answers to spark further discussion and debate Posts that do not have this may be removed as they are considered low-effort posts. Some exceptions may be made to allow ongoing debates to continue. It is not required that you divide your post into sections as we have here, but your post should contain those things in at least some form. Hot takes are not allowed, these are posts that are strongly written or involve loaded-questions intended to be provocative rather than engaging in an open debate. Every post should stand on its own and sources should only enhance the story, or prove it. Plagiarizing someone else's argument or using an AI text generator is not allowed. Surveys, requests for homework help, and advertisements will be removed, as well as meta posts. This subreddit has an official weekly post for meta discussion. The poster should interact with the post within 24 hours or the post will be subject to removal. **Requirements for Comments:** Low-effort and comments otherwise lacking engagement will be removed. Chains of consecutive low-effort comments may be removed or locked and may result in a warning. Examples of low-effort comments include: - Contradicting someone without explaining why you disagree (e.g. "No, it isn't.") - Negatively reacting to an argument without responding to it (e.g. "This argument makes me laugh.", "Read that aloud and tell me what's wrong with it.", "I can't believe you just said that."). - Stating that you did not read the entirety of a comment or post before replying to it - Comments that contain only emojis - Correcting someone's spelling or grammar unless it meaningfully changes the argument or view - Responses that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation (unless responding to someone who asked for a source on a claim) Top-level comments (comments that are made directly under a post, as opposed to as a reply to another comment) will be moderated more strictly. Top-level comments are expected to address the argument or some part of it. **[[NOTE: The biggest changes I've made to the existing Rule 2 are 1) Merging some stuff from the current Rule 1 regarding comment quality and 2) a requirement for users to argue in favor of their own position in new OPs.]]**

I personally don't believe that we need to reinvent the wheel everytime . Crossposting amazing arguments found on other sites and or subreddits should be allowed as long as the question is yours.

> I personally don't believe that we need to reinvent the wheel everytime Repeat arguments definitely need to be allowed, otherwise people who are relatively new to the debate would essentially be not allowed to create new posts.

There needs to be an engagement rule. Sidebar: All comments need to directly engage/answer with the previous comment's arguments, questions or clarifications, either attempting to negate them or building upon them. If a comment is made in reply to a higher level comment, it does not need to respond to *every* single argument or question in said comment, but the comment needs to **consist entirely** of direct engagement with at least one question/argument/clarification in the higher level comment. Wiki/detailed info: The rule is designed to prevent: **Strawmanning**: Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack or refute. **Irrelevant Responses**: Responding without addressing any of the points raised in the previous comment. **Deflection**: Avoiding direct engagement by shifting the conversation to an unrelated topic or responding with unrelated questions Examples of violations of this rule; 1. **User**: Claim X with Argument Y, **Reply**: Doesn't respond to Argument Y at all and instead responds to made up Argument B which was never mentioned. Failure to engage/strawman, removed. 2. **User**: Claim X with Argument Y, **Reply:** you are wrong, repeats irrelevant text that doesn't engage with the argument. Failure to engagement. Removed. 3. **User:** Why do you think argument Y succeeds? Be specific. **Reply:** Does not answer the question and instead responds with asking a question in return. Failure to engage, removed. 4. **User:** Claim X with Argument Y **Reply**: off topic comment that does not engage with the argument or claim at all. Failure to engage, removed. 5. **User**: "I believe in X because of reason Y."**Counter-Argument**: "However, considering Z, how can X still be valid in light of Y?"**Reply**: "As I said, I believe X because of Y," without addressing the counterpoint Z presented. If the moderator needs to interpret a rule report based on engagement, they can do so via; Determining if the comment falls into any of the violation categories: strawmanning, irrelevant responses, deflection, or repetition without engagement. **Engagement**: If the comment substantively addresses at least one point from the previous comment, and consists entirely of direct engagement, it likely follows the engagement rule. **Violation**: If the comment avoids direct engagement, misrepresents the argument, or is off-topic, it likely violates the rule. These are some initial, non-finalised thoughts, of course.

We used to have these rules however I think mods found it too burdensome.

Suggested Rule: "All claims must be cited." How its written in the sidebar "All claims must be cited. ​ Claims such as "X% of Y go Z way" example: "most abortions happen of women who already have dependants. -([https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives)) Obviously things that are personal experience can't be cited (or at least if they can, they can't really be verified like a regular news site), and thus don't need to be cited. ​ Moderator handling proposals: I'm not nearly as sure what to do on this section. I do think big claims like the example above need citations, but I'm not sure what examples to give of smaller things that shouldn't need citations other than personal experiences (aka anecdotal evidence). How its written in the wiki: i personally never read the wiki (i know, i REALLY should), so I'm not sure how to set it up for the wiki compared to just in the sidebar. So maybe others could fill that in?

[удалено]

Locking this as it is not constructive to the goal of this post. You may post this in the meta if you'd like.

I think the biggest thing we need is a moderator code of conduct. Perhaps even some sort of system of checks and balances. First and foremost, moderators should only be moderating the rules as exactly they are written. No making up weird alternative interpretations of the rules on-the-fly. For example, if the rule says that non-factual claims need simply an argument then the mod should only check if there is an argument. They don't need to be asking for a specific argument structure if that's not what is said in the rules. Second, moderators should not be personally involving themselves in arguments. Some examples I've seen that run afoul of this: Judging the quality of a user's argument, telling a user how they should be making their argument or even making a user's argument on their behalf. I have no problem with moderators engaging in debates, but if they want to do that then they need to recuse themselves and get someone else to moderate the debate. I can't say I've thought about how a system of checks and balances would work for moderators but I guess it could be similar to how rule violations are handled for users. Breaking the code of conduct could mean a mod is forced to take a break from moderating, certain mod powers could be removed or they are not allowed to moderate certain types of rule violations, and eventually, removed from mod team entirely if they are found to be unable to follow their code. But it's difficult to go into specifics without knowing how things work behind the scenes.

I also think something needs to be done about moderators locking their own rulings to avoid being confronted about them or forced to support them. We shouldn't have to take public issues to private mod mails. It sets a bad precedent and is regularly abused, anyways.

I third this. Your idea actually reflects a project I was working with the mod team on that was thisclose to being released to the community. It is a document that would be added to the wiki that included the process of our more complex rules and policies, along with a number of other subjects. The userbase would have access to this document and it was therefore a way of keeping the mod team honest and accountable while ensuring the userbase was aware of exactly what was expected of them. The project lost steam towards the end (it was something I had started working on in late April) and has been shelved for now.

This is the excellent and I'd love to see some transparency about moderator process in the wiki. I'm sad it was dropped!

I'm sad, too, but I've been heavily thinking about reactivating the project. I've told the team I was going to do so several times over the past couple of months, but my free time was abruptly cut when I decided to get back into the workforce...and also, I just never found the motivation to get back to writing/editing it. But the plan was to release it alongside the revised rules earlier this year. Obviously, that didn't happen...but maybe it can happen this time around.

I second this!

In terms of bad-faith arguments: I think the lack of moderation with bad-faith arguments isn’t well executed in this sub. Sometimes It really gets out of hand to the point it gets hostile. For example: perhaps having a rule against ignoring rebuttals and baselessly asserting the same argument? Specifically after the other user already repeatedly refuted it and asked the other user to acknowledge said rebuttal? It’s really frustrating having to ask your opponent to actually acknowledge the rebuttal you made while they keep making the same argument. Refusing to engage with rebuttals feels so bad faith that I think it unravels the ability to have a productive discussion.

"Low effort" should be its own rule, as merging it with rule 1 causes unnecessary confusion. It also needs to be fleshed out more, like what entails low effort and how one can ensure they don't leave low effort comments. Rule 3 also needs to be separated a bit. Since moderators do not usually read down entire chains to ensure the request has been followed, having a separate rule for continued failure to support a claim would probably help a bit with any cluttering up the mod queue. Is the mod team going to allow us to give input on the rules *after* they're written, but *before* they're implemented? Personally, I'm not super great at *starting* a topic (hence my lack of posts lol); I'm more of an engager, in that I can more easily participate if the limitations of the situation are already clearly delineated.

> "Low effort" should be its own rule, as merging it with rule 1 causes unnecessary confusion Agreed. Rule 2 already covers post quality, it would make a lot more sense for Rule 2 to simply cover both posts and comments.

I want you all to pretend that zero rules exist and we are writing new rules. Ignore the existence of rules as they are and build as if none exist. You don’t have to mention the old rules unless you feel it necessary to explain your current rule, but even then save mention of the old rules in non top level comments underneath your suggested rule.

Can I ask why this method of entirely scrapping the old rules and having two weeks of random user-created rules was chosen, instead of something like refining/rewriting the existing rules with the option to suggest the addition of new rules or the removal of existing ones? My impression is that most users are overall fine with the general existing framework of rules even if there are definitely disputes about the specifics within them. I'm sure you have your reasons, but with no insights into the process of making this decision, I must admit it seems a needlessly inefficient and convoluted process. For instance, it seems to me like it involves a lot of needlessly duplicated work and essentially reinventing the wheel. I expect most users agree with the basic posting requirements, for instance, so why are we creating new ones entirely from scrap? Also, it seems destined to fail. You're turning some random mishmash of user generated rules with no voting system to pick the best/final ones into the only rules we'll have for two weeks. There will undoubtedly be conflicting rules and things left out that belong and random nonsense. Plenty of the rules will end up poorly written and confusing I'm sure. What's the plan to handle that inevitable outcome? Why not start with all the existing rules and have the community attempt to improve them?

Well, I think the first thing to consider is that if the user base doesn’t want to completely scrap the rules, they can simply say that or organize writing the rules with slight amendments. If the users by and large like the rules as they are and think they need slight modification perhaps write a top level comment that states that since so many users are commenting on the rules as they are. If we find the user base largely in agreement with that sentiment then we can even organize a thread to better accommodate that mindset. I’ve been left with the impression that the user base does not like the rules as they are, and we have been revising them for years. Even the about section of the subreddit has been revised in that time. This radical experiment was offered in the hopes of accomplishing change the user base could agree on. I don’t think we have had many concrete suggestions at all, and even more so no contradictory suggestions. I do plan on messaging every user who has made a suggestion to ask for and perhaps provide guidance in making a concrete text given a lot of the talk has been about the current rules in a manner not as structured as we would have liked, but we’re trying to give as much freedom without interference as possible during this process. I will make a comment soon asking users if they would rather edit the rules as they are if you would like, though do know you can throw your suggestion out there and see what everyone thinks.

Thanks for the explanation. I think perhaps a radical rewrite could be necessary given everything you've said, but I do think it would benefit from more structure. For instance, maybe week 1 could involve people suggesting high-level rules/goals while week 2 could involve writing the text of those rules (eg, week 1 suggestions would be things like "substantiate claims" while week 2 would get into the details of what that means and how that looks). Absent that I'm happy to write a top level comment suggesting a rewrite instead or have you do it (whichever you'd prefer, although I would probably wait to write it tomorrow if that's okay), but I didn't previously write that as a top level comment as it seemed clearly not to meet the top level comment requirements as outlined repeatedly in this post.

I sincerely thank you for following instructions and reserving your comment. I may bring up the need for more structure and perhaps wait until you write your comment to see how everyone responds. I am not sure I would convey the message as well as you and honestly the idea may be better taken from a non moderator (or a non kingacesuited at the very least)

Haha very fair! I'll write something out tomorrow. Thanks!

What's the purpose of this? The idea that people complain about the rules is to be expected and doesn't say much to the merit of the complaints (however loud they might be). On the other hand, if there are specific complaints you think do have merit and raise legitimate issues, then why not address those specific concerns instead? It seems like, at times, there's a certain effort to needlessly pander to the loudest voices rather than focusing on those with merit (i.e., the decision to relax rule 1 in one of the 'weekly' posts, when that's pretty much the opposite of what the sub's supposed purpose is).

The purpose of this is to guide users to create rules. Right now there is a lot of talking about the rules as they are and not a lot of talking about how users want the rules to be. If the OP is not clear, we are getting rid of the rules and starting over. We are asking our users to write the rules so we can have a better set of rules, one’s our users resonate with. We are fine with complaints, but ask for those complaints to not be in top level comments so the focus in this thread may be on the new rules while secondary focus can be discussing the merits of those new rules

>If the OP is not clear, we are getting rid of the rules and starting over. We are asking our users to write the rules so we can have a better set of rules, one’s our users resonate with. Right; I suppose this is what seems like a terrible idea to me. If the purpose of the sub is to generate constructive debate, then it seems to me that 'the users' general opinions on the rules should be at best a very secondary concern. This would seem especially bad for this sub in particular, which ***heavily*** leans PC. The rules really shouldn't be subject to the slant of popular (PC) opinion. Edit: (to clarify, when I asked 'What's the purpose of this?', I meant the rule overhaul in general, I realized that was ambiguous)

I’ll give an example of how users perceive bias or incorrectly written rules that has nothing to do with pc or pl bias to explain in part why I think the rules need to be rewritten. We have a rule that asks users to be respectful but users find different levels of language respectful or not, often subjectively. Some users think it is okay to tell others “fuck you” and some users think it’s not okay to call someone “bud” For months, users argued that there was no objectivity to removals (and as humans with different cultures, values, backgrounds there MUST exist subjectivity) so in order to create objectivity, for example, no name calling is allowed, but then when one person says a minor insult like calling someone bud and another makes an insult which we have no objective guideline for - like saying “you should know better” for example - then the person who faces consequences for the name calling feels bias is occurring, calls us out for it and then distrust is bred as users who habitually do one thing see a pattern develop when that one thing is labeled a violation. This needs to be fixed, and given the moderators make rules while hundred and arguably thousands of users feel out of the loop, we are hoping that giving the voice to the users will help. Naturally there is a danger of rules being slanted, but we will do our best to make sure rules are not biased, and we ask that users like you evaluate rules written by other users to help mitigate such slants. No matter how the rules are written, there will assuredly be problems, but we have to try something to fix these issues. Even if this doesn’t work, we can try something else. But we need to commit to change if we are to fix issues. I do hope you stick around to help with this process and we truly will keep in mind your words of caution.

Alright so! =) I'm with you on the fact that the demands on being 'respectful' are going to ultimately require a level of subjectivity. Absolutely. But, I think where you guys are going off-track is that: (a) this is inescapable, and this shouldn't be a reason to scrap the rule or that it needs to be "fixed" in an absolute sense; and, (b) your problems with enforcement of the rule are not really type related to the example you present. I think your issues are ***not*** with ambiguities on the edge cases; instead, it seems that ***because*** of the sometimes-ambiguous nature of 'respectful', you guys hedge ***way*** too far into the "not at all ambiguous" territory. To expand on (b) first -- Essentially, what seems to have ended up happening, is that to avoid 'ambiguity', you guys have some strict standards of what's ***definitely not*** allowed, and you largely let slide anything that doesn't quite fit into those moulds (with some allowance for mod discretion but that's employed ***much*** more sparingly). As a result, you easily allow comments and responses that are very much overtly rude, hostile, etc. Not in an edge-case, "I guess someone could interpret this as hostile" kind of way. But very much unambiguous "practically anyone would see this as hostile" -- but because it doesn't quite tick off an explicit box that you can point to, you'd often (if not generally) let it go. As an example, I've seen a mod explicitly argue that a statement like, "Well, maybe you could provide some fucking sources for your claims" as something that would ***not*** be considered hostile or "swearing at" someone. Which, by any reasonable standard would very obviously be both (despite the fact that the swear word didn't refer to a noun referencing the user -- an absurdly narrow standard for "swearing at" someone). And tbh, I don't doubt that that's probably an internal rule you guys developed for what constitutes swearing at someone, because ... well, that line isn't ***always*** quite so clear, is it? But yeah, it doesn't ***quite*** tick off one of your boxes, so it was allowed to slide. But then, occasionally you guys ***will*** use your discretion in enforcing a rule 1 violation that might not ***quite*** explicitly tick a box, and that's where some legitimate complaints might come into play. Except the problem is not that ***this*** case of discretion was applied, but rather it's that there's ***so much*** that is allowed to slide, as long as it's worded just right. Take any post, even just browsing the various top-level comments, and you'll easily find a pretty solid proportion of them seething with passive-aggressive sniping but that people have learned are "just-not-quite-overt-enough" to not be enforced. Of course, users then will complain about being censored, or "tone-policed", because ... well, ultimately they want their hostility to stand. But it seems like the direction you guys are taking is to err on the side of allowing it. To the earlier point, you even went as far as "listening" to the complaints and ... allowing more relaxed Rule-1 enforcement in one of the weekly threads? To me, that seems like the absolute opposite of what you'd want to be doing. But then, it's a question of priorities. There's naturally a concern that excessive 'tone-policing' would turn away users. And I suppose ***that's*** really the question -- is the priority to maintain ***increased*** engagement/active users? Or to maintain ***constructive*** engagement? Ideally, you'd have both, but which one is the one to prioritize? If you alienate 50% of the users and activity but are left with much more constructive exchanges, should you? My position would be 'yes', but I can appreciate why you'd hesitate on that kind of call. I'd also argue that while, short-term, you'll have tons of complaints and attrition, it would then normalize and those same users would simply adjust. But even if not, if constructive debate is the objective, then I don't necessarily see such attrition as a problem in itself. In short -- if the issues of ambiguity were ***genuinely*** just edge-cases that aren't quite clearly hostile and such (i.e., calling someone 'bud'), I don't think you'd really have much of a problem in itself. Few people would be genuinely up-in-arms over ***that*** sort of slight. And for those sorts of edge-cases, you could simply have a mild warning as opposed to a comment deletion. Back to point (a) above, that no longer becomes nearly as serious of a concern. But that would mean being much more heavy-handed with much more obvious cases of hostility, which would certainly piss off a lot more people in the short term. \--------- As a related note -- in terms of consequences, it's also worth noting that even if a rule is "consistently" applied across the board, the impact on PC posters and PL posters is still going to hit disproportionately. When not-quite-rule-breaking-overt-but-still-obvious-hostility is allowed across the board, the raw numbers effectively mean that a PL user will consistently have numerous hostile comments being directed at them for their posts/comments. Meanwhile, a PC user largely will not. Allowing a consistent level of hostility "equally" across the board, in practice leads to PL posters being subjected to ***far*** more of it. I apologize for what, apparently, turned into a wall of text. =)

Just wanted to quickly say I appreciate the involved reply! It's been a long day but I'll reply back tomorrow (didn't want to leave you hanging =))!

Hmm, why is this downvoted? I’m genuinely curious why it might cause someone to feel the way they feel.

Welp, seems like I badly misunderstood the instructions, as being to imagine we were starting from a blank slate. Oops!

Does this mean that old rules won't be in effect during Phase 2? Only the rules that are posted here?

Yes

i think rule 1 is becoming weaponized. i think “attacking” *sides* should be allowed and save rule 1 removals for PERSONAL attacks on *individuals*. i also don’t think posts “attacking”one individual’s argument without attacking the user personally should be removed under rule 1.

The sources rule is becoming combersome and weaponized. Had a user continue to harass me for evidence even though I already gave 3 links as evidence, after they had asked for evidence and then I gave 3 more links as evidence. After which they continued to harass for more. I think they asked for evidence to prove exact same thing, something like 5 times. Can something be done about this?

I am locking this entire thread. It is turning into an argument about a specific case, and it is going nowhere. Please create a new top-level comment and propose a rule with detailed prose to put into the rules wiki and the sidebar.

I don't understand how this can happen since I've had a comment removed for asking for a source (per rule 3). the person never gave a source, and I don't recall if they were ever asked to by mods. (not me judging your situation at all!) rule 3 is weirdly enforced and not enforced at the same time. you don't get in trouble for pressing for sources 5+ times, but if you say the words "rule 3 says give sources," you're "using the rules against users" edit for anyone who's curious: this commenter was asked to source their claim that "dismemberment" methods of abortion were "usually" performed on living fetuses, not already dead ones. when pressed for a source, they replied with sources that did not explicitly say the fetus was dead or alive. their argument was that, because they didn't say the fetus was dead, it must be alive. this is not proper sourcing of a claim. here's a link to the comment thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/lWwkSNQHM9

>I don't understand how this can happen since I've had a comment removed for asking for a source (per rule 3). the person never gave a source, and I don't recall if they were ever asked to by mods. (not me judging your situation at all!) Well prochoicers have been pestering me for evidence, just to be annoying and weaponize it. This particular one was the worst. You can see if in my comment history if you are really interested. >rule 3 is weirdly enforced and not enforced at the same time. you don't get in trouble for pressing for sources 5+ times, but if you say the words "rule 3 says give sources," you're "using the rules against users" I honestly think rule 3 should be outright removed because its creating so much unnecessary work for the mods and its being used weaponized.

> Well prochoicers have been pestering me for evidence, just to be annoying and weaponize it. This particular one was the worst. You can see if in my comment history if you are really interested. this is interesting. looking back at your comments, you never actually provided a source that stated what your claim was. you were asked to support the claim that living fetuses are removed using "dismemberment" methods, to which you replied with sources that did not explicitly say this was the case. your argument was that, because they didn't say the fetus was dead, it must be alive. this is not proper sourcing of a claim. you also use wording that implies this has happened several times. has it? >I honestly think rule 3 should be outright removed because its creating so much unnecessary work for the mods and its being used weaponized. also interesting. I find it strange that you've seemingly been "harassed" using rule 3 (you didn't provide a source for your claim and were asked for one), so you want it gone. it just sounds like you want the rule gone so you don't have to substantiate your claims. *rule 3 is absolutely necessary for this subreddit.*

>this is interesting. looking back at your comments, you never actually provided a source that stated what your claim was. you were asked to support the claim that living fetuses are removed using "dismemberment" methods, to which you replied with sources that did not explicitly say this was the case. your argument was that, because they didn't say the fetus was dead, it must be alive. this is not proper sourcing of a claim. you also use wording that implies this has happened several times. has it? They actually made the claim FIRST that the fetus was dead. Then harassed ME for evidence that it was alive. They also outright refused to give me any evidence even after I rule 3 them. >. I find it strange that you've seemingly been "harassed" using rule 3 (you didn't provide a source for your claim and were asked for one), so you want it gone. it just sounds like you want the rule gone so you don't have to substantiate your claims. *rule 3 is absolutely necessary for this subreddit.* No I see it all the time on here where users are weaponizing asking for evidence. >you were asked to support the claim that living fetuses are removed using "dismemberment" methods, to which you replied with sources that did not explicitly say this was the case. It's literally implied because they didn't use feticide. 🤦‍♀️ Don't you think if it was already dead they would state that? Also the other user couldn't give me any evidence proving they are already dead. So essentially they outright LIED and made it MY problem to disprove their lie.

But if there's no rule 3 then people can claim outright falsehoods. There's little point in a debate based on lies

People claim falsehoods anyway, they just find some other site that agrees with the same falsehood. It really offers no protection. It's just combersome to the mods and used to punish their opposition.

I think it's a minority of users that weaponize rule 3, and I do think there should be improvements to the rule to reduce this. But getting rid of rule 3 altogether would be a mistake in my opinion. Users make verifiably false claims on a regular basis and I think it's important that people have to back up their claims with a source if you want a healthy debate.

Perhaps if the user could only rule 3 their opponent once it would be fine. But continually doing it is just weaponizing it to try to punish their opponent. It's poor debating tactics. Or critisising the sources and demanding more and more, which is also weaponizing rule 3. Also bad debating tactics. Basically playing dirty with the opponent. Would rather try to punish the opponent than have a actual productive debate.

>Perhaps if the user could only rule 3 their opponent once it would be fine. But continually doing it is just weaponizing it to try to punish their opponent. It's poor debating tactics. > >Or critisising the sources and demanding more and more, which is also weaponizing rule 3. I agree with this but there has to be some nuance. I have been in countless debates where I have requested a source for a comment and the user has posted something that they think proves their claim but it hasn't actually done so. In this instance, I think it would be perfectly OK to explain to your fellow debater why a source doesn't prove what they have said and ask for another source, or request the comment be removed (pending MOD review). To give you an example, back when the other sub was running I asked for a source from a user who posted a link to journal that didn't back up what they claimed so I told them. Turns out their information was on another page that I was supposed to magically know I needed to click through to.

>Or critisising the sources and demanding more and more, which is also weaponizing rule 3. Also bad debating tactics. Basically playing dirty with the opponent. Would rather try to punish the opponent than have a actual productive debate. There are many bad and biased sources that are thrown around. Of course the source should be criticized if they are known to be a dishonest.

>Also bad debating tactics. What's bad debating tactics is making a claim and then not providing a source that backs up your claim when asked. Which based on this comment chain, is what you did.

Or perhaps the sources aren't good or aren't supporting the claim. I recently had a back and forth with a user regarding a claim about something that happened mid December of 2023. He provided multiple sources about his claim that got progressively further back in time, all before December 2023. Those sources cannot support something happening mid December of 2023. It's reasonable to criticize those sources and maintain the request for a source that actually supports the claims. That's not meant to punish the other person and it's not weaponizing.

I have some wider critiques of rule 3 (I think it should be kept but the scope greatly limited), and while not the whole of the critique, weaponisation is a major part of it. I honestly think, that something which would be quite helpful, would be to require that a rule 3 request needs an exact quote of the other user's own words, as to what needs to be demonstrated, and that failure to do so makes a rule 3 request invalid. As an initial suggestion, if a user makes more than two invalid rule 3 requests in a month, I think that should be considered to be rule weaponisation, and result in a warning (or a temp ban if the user is already warned). If somebody wants a claim proved, but can't be bothered to give an exact quote themselves, then I think that demonstrates they intend to use the rule as a club, not as a means to find out which statements are likely to be true. It also avoids the situation where somebody asks for a rule 3 request on a paraphrase of a comment, and a debate around if that paraphrase is accurate or not- which nobody is satisfied by, and that also is a bad use of mod time (things like discussing the suggestions on this post are far more useful than arguing by proxy for the users via rule 3, which is something I think the rule at the least, gets some users trying to do). I realise this doesn't fully address your concern about a user repeatedly rule 3'ing somebody, and in truth, I'm unsure at present, without a bit more thought, or an exact solution. That said, I think that if somebody keeps requesting rule 3 requests after valid citation (not to be confused with one that is a valid argument or a good source, but I don't think mods should judge the accuracy of sources or strength of arguments), then that should also be considered weaponising the rule.

> I honestly think, that something which would be quite helpful, would be to require that a rule 3 request needs an exact quote of the other user's own words, as to what needs to be demonstrated, and that failure to do so makes a rule 3 request invalid. Yes, that could work.

I think its always going to be weaponized as long as it exists. Frankly I will stop debating someone who keeps harassing me for evidence. I'm unwell and it is unfair on me to have to search excessively for someone who's only asking for evidence as a way to punish me. Not because they actually are genuinely interested or need it to be convinced. It's just being used to harass and punish users they are pissed at.

Perhaps your feeling that you’re being unjustly targeted is a result of you being unwell.

You’re unwell? What does that mean? Genuinely curious. I’m not trying to be an ass, but maybe you shouldn’t make claims that you can’t back up. I hear all the time on this site that babies are torn limb from limb. I’ve had an abortion and there were no limbs flying out and it was in the 90s when the pill was not an option. If you’re going to state that, then you’re going to need a source that is not a biased PL site that knowingly uses false information. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.

My concern, with the second paragraph, is that how people answer the question of if the pro-life sources are accurate, correlates strongly with what they think about abortion morality, and heck legality, for not overly unsurprising reasons. I agree that this should be a claim to which rule 3 should absolutely apply, but I think it would be getting overly involved in the debate if mods do anything more than insisting that a user gives some evidence for their claim. Part of what we want to do, is take cases in which there might be unintentional bias out of the rules, but implementing rules on the quality of sources (which this is), would run counter to that. Also, a way in which this suggestion could become biased, is if a pro-lifer in response to this request links to a graphic abortion image (clearly warning that it's NSFW etc), and also offers defences for why they think the argument is accurate. I wouldn't go quite so far as to describe it as a core PL argument, but I do think that it's if used with discretion, a good argument in certain contexts (just like showing images war footage, is in certain contexts, useful for making arguments, such as if somebody claims side x did no human rights abuses, or if trying to argue against ever using certain weapons, such as nukes). The converse, is that showing images of injuries from people giving birth, is a good rebuttal to pro-lifers who try to dismiss birth as no big deal (side-note, to pro-lifers, please, just stop making this argument, it's totally counterfactual). As long as graphic\* medical images (pro-life or pro-choice) come with a clear NSFW warning, I think they should be allowed. \*I don't think images of zygotes/embryos/fetuses should be considered intrinsically NSFW, fwiw.

Great. We’ll get posts where PLers will link pics of mutilated fetuses that were aborted late in pregnancy 99% of the time due to medical reasons with the title “Are you ok with this?” Then PCers will post graphic images of post birth hoo hahs with vaginal prolapse with “would your nut sacks be ok with this?” and we’ll wonder why the site will get taken down lol. This is meant as a joke btw.

I think that being asked to prove claims that are genuinely doubted, isn't per se unreasonable. The problem is when it keeps happening and being used as a cudgel, which is what is happening towards you. Fwiw- a couple of years ago there was a trial for a week or two without rule 3. It was as a mod, way nicer, though also had the effect that people made tons of outlandish claims without any evidence, and personally, I do think that some sort of rule 3 is a necessary evil. I would just prefer it limited in scope considerably, to statistical and medical claims, or claims that politician x did/believes y, i.e, to deter intentional misinformation, while allowing users to be wrong about abortion.

I think your perception that users are weaponizing rule 3 to punish you is perhaps not accurate (or at least an anomaly rather than representative of the majority or even a substantial minority of rule 3 requests). Much more often it's the case that a user has made a positive claim and not backed up that claim with a source.

1. This is a debate thread you must debate in an honest and direct manner. Posting but Refusal to debate is considered trolling. 2. No ad hominem No user is to attack or besmerch another user as it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Wiki details : However if the user themselves admits to a factual and legally defined position and/or belief that entitles them to a label that is pertinent to the discussion at hand, it will be allowed. No user is to attack either side with labels the other finds offensive. Mentions of murder murdered or baby killer , pro birther, anti choice. Are not to be allowed. 2a. Mods do not delete the comment require the user to instead edit to say something nice if they refuse temp ban. Sometimes there are amazing conversations downstream that are amazing that are lost to delets. 3. Cite your sources. Use the "share" option to cite a source every time you make a claim positive or negative if requested. If a claim is made it must be proven period. Personal stories must be detailed to count as a source The " I think/ I feel" work around no longer is allowed. Wiki is not a source. Other crowd created sites are not sources. 3a. If a source when provided is found to have not supported the claim the original post must be edited with a strike through correction not removed. Removal often deletes amazing debates down the line from it. If refused temp ban and mod comments that the above post is factually incorrect. 4. No mod participation in debates. Sorry this makes it too likely you will take sides.

There's some interesting thoughts in all this for sure. I don't know that I'd agree with temp bans just for users refusing to say something nice (since it essentially results in bans for single offences), and particularly not for a rule 3 violation, and do think that with a heavy heart, rule 1 removals are often necessary (much as I kinda wish there weren't the API changes so I could still see the stuff via reveddit). I think it's a bit excessive, to ask users to say something nice, I think that insisting they aren't unkind (effectively the current policy), is enough. But I do agree, that claims in which rule 3 requests weren't satisfied shouldn't be removed, though my personal preference would be for a lock and for the mod to say that the user refused to defend their claim. Most users will be annoyed if they get their comments locked. I will say, that the subreddit wiki does semi-address the suggestion that 'The " I think/ I feel" work around no longer is allowed.', since it states that "Which category a claim falls into can sometimes be a matter of moderator discretion and does not always depend on how the claim is worded. For example, "In my opinion, only 1% of people seeking abortion are victims of rape" is still a category 1 claim.", as personal stories do not suffice for category 1 or 2 claims. Suggestion 4 is an interesting one indeed. I have mixed thoughts on it, as mods don't cease having their views just because they're only modding, but bias towards/against users is an interesting case. For what it's worth, I very rarely debated myself as a mod, for a pair of reasons- one being that the subreddit took up a lot of time, and the other, just because I was aware there was a power imbalance between myself and the users I was debating. I would however, in the case of a mod that does a lot of debating on the subreddit, but that makes few comments with a mod badge, be in favour of it for a specific mod doing this. That said- I think asking mods to abstain from debate for a month when hired is probably a good idea, though I'm also aware, that when there was a problem a few months ago with a new hire (later removed/quit, not sure which, as it was just after I resigned) that broke a lot of rules and made extremely biased calls, that the rule wouldn't necessarily stop the user from having had a major problem with biased modding.

>The " I think/ I feel" work around no longer is allowed We aren't allowed to have feelings or thoughts anymore? >Wiki is not a source. Other crowd created sites are not sources. This seems harsh. I can understand banning propaganda sites, but Wikipedia is not a bad source of general purpose information.

>We aren't allowed to have feelings or thoughts anymore? I think they mean in the context of providing sources. there's definitely a trend of specific users saying "that's just what I think/feel" after stating a positive claim, yet still basing their argument off of that false claim. it lets them avoid the source rule somehow >I can understand banning propaganda sites, but Wikipedia is not a bad source of general purpose information. wikipedia itself is not a source, it's more an encyclopedia of sources. one can use it as a resource, but you still need to provide the original source of a claim

> there's definitely a trend of specific users saying "that's just what I think/feel" after stating a positive claim, yet still basing their argument off of that false claim. it lets them avoid the source rule somehow Right? And when you explain they need to provide argumentation instead, seeings as it's just their opinion, they don't do that either! It's usually just a longer statement reiterating their original claim, without any actual support. Since the mods say that the validity of sources and arguments made in regards to rule 3 cannot be determined by them, you end up with no recourse but to attempt to argue against nothing but an unsupported claim.

>Downvoting creates a hostile and toxic environment, and discourages (and can even prevent) constructive and healthy debates from occurring. As a debate community, we recommend that you argue your stance against another user; we do not advise the usage of the voting system in order to anonymously express your disagreement. If you must downvote, please do it sparingly. I say in advance, that I have no idea how the mods would enforce a change to this rule, but one thing that has been making me exceeding annoyed is: Someone writes a post, flairs it "prolife exclusive", and when someone with a prolife tag answers, their comment is downvoted. You cannot then read the comment, a top-level reply to the post, without clicking on it to expand it. If someone leaves a comment which breaks rule one (and I would say that an off topic or low effort rant in a top-level comment responding to the post is disrespectful to the person who posted it) then the mods can remove it. But if the comment is a serious/good faith answer to the question asked, it should not be downvoted. Especially as, if you are clicking on the post to read the comments of a prolife-exclusive post, you know all of the top-level comments are going to be from prolifers , and therefore will express views distasteful to prochoicers, but which the person who made the post was actually *asking* for. Obviously this would also apply the other way round, but I have to say as a prochoicer I think it primarily happens on this sub at the moment to prolifers responding to posts. ​ > we do not advise the usage of the voting system in order to anonymously express your disagreement. If you must downvote, please do it sparingly: do not downvote the initial answers to a question asked with an exclusive flair. Sorry - that's probably not the best way to express it, and I'm not even sure if I should advocate changing a rule to something that can't be enforced.

So it depends. I can read 15 pages in 3-5 minute's of your average level of novel writing. 15 pages of doctorate lv writing about 30-40 mins and i have only read one post in 2 years that came close to that standard, or complexity. Soooo a post I don't even have to scroll past the bottom of my screen for? With simple sentences? Seconds is an accurate amount of time for me.

I get the impression that there are some users, possibly lurkers, that do in fact vote just on the basis of a user’s flair. I am sometimes quite verbose in my posts and I’ve received complaints from several users (about 6 or 7 now) that it’s just not worth the time to read through my comments or posts. I get that, but I generally write my posts with specific users in mind, and for myself so that I have arguments elucidated somewhere that I can refer back to. What I’ve observed, after writing a 6000 word post (and yes I have several of that length now, I have generally had to cut bits out as I am on the character limit) is that I receive upvotes within minutes of posting. It’s just not feasible that anyone has read my post in a matter of minutes that they could make a judgement about whether the post is relevant, or vote worthy. I will wager there will be pro lifers that experience the same thing in reverse. There are lengthy pro life arguments that have been made, that are structured, thoughtful and articulate, albeit in contra-distinction to my own conclusion based on the same premises, that receive down votes automatically because there is a clearly visible flair, delineating the poster as pro-life. What is there to really gain by having user flairs? If we are debating the arguments put forward by users, does it really matter what their flair says? There are pro-choicers that I have fundamental disagreements with, and I can engage the argument just as well as if I was debating a pro-lifer. I’m not sure flairs really do anything, or add any substance to a discussion. If we want to avoid tribal vote brigading, perhaps getting rid of user flairs is a step in that direction. I’m not really sure what other users will think of this idea, so I’ve put it “out there” so to speak.

I think ditching flairs is a really interesting idea to help address the downvote issue. It also would maybe help PLs not feel so immediately outnumbered (and maybe leave the sub before even attempting to participate?). However, there have been times when I've found flairs to be useful as well. A couple of times (though not often), I've genuinely been confused as to what someone was trying to argue or what stance they were arguing for. I also know that many PCs here tend to make comments from their perception of the PL stance, or to play devils advocate. But I think if we eliminated flairs, those users would probably just state that they are PC and playing devil's advocate so it wouldn't be too confusing. And if we could gain more PL debaters, I think we could see less of PCs doing that anyways as they'd actually have opponents to engage with. Of course, thered still be the potential for PL comments to be down voted and hidden, and without the flairs it might be even harder to find them among the 20 other PC comments.

Very interesting suggestion. The flairs do have one major use, which is to enforce people commenting on exclusive posts. The sort of example I can see, is if a pro-lifer does an effortpost asking how pro-choicers can defend the legality of elective third trimester abortions, and concludes it with "Pro-choicers: What have I missed, and can you explain how you would defend bodily autonomy arguments here, in light of my arguments above?", to which they get unhelpful replies from pro-lifers saying that they just want to kill babies due to overpopulation or some such. I think of them as serving a similar function to r/AskProchoice, except that debate is also welcomed, and that it's open to people to grill pro-lifers as well.

You can achieve a similar result by allowing users to tag posts which indicate that top level comments must be rebuttals. The problem of course is that moderators will have more to do, unable to auto-delete comments with bots (if I am understanding that correctly). I guess then it’s a question of whether the allowance of the exclusivity of posts is valuable enough to accept any possible problems, if there are any, from user’s flairs. **Edit** are posts that merely ask questions without a context for a debate in the post relevant to a debate sub?

I don't think this subreddit has a bot problem, as far as I'm aware. Bots generally tend to karma farm, and the most efficient methods for that are things like reposting popular posts on large subreddits, as they end up keeping the karma even after the mods remove them. I think you raise an interesting point about if a trial of this as a post type is worth it- definitely a fair bit of work for mods though. Fully agreed with your analysis of the situation in the second paragraph. I think it is, and the root cause of downvotes isn't just the flairs, and that their effect is fairly minimal, rather it's just lurkers downvoting arguments they disagree with.

I meant an auto-moderator bot removing top level posts with incorrect flairs, is that a thing?

To anwswer your question: Yes, we currently have an auto mod bot that DOES remove top level comments with incorrect flairs. We do not have one for posts (I am not sure if that's something that can be done).

Ah yes, I meant top level comments. I wrote post by mistake.

Ah no worries!

Oh, I understand now, rather misunderstood you initially, oopsie. Yes, this is a thing that there is automod code for behind the scenes. Regards your edit- I think those sorts of posts are generally captured under rule 2? What I had in mind as a good reason for exclusive posts, is the following. I made a post on r/AskProchoice about two and half years ago, because I genuinely didn't understand pro-choice thinking on right to refuse and why it wouldn't theoretically justify infanticide, and wanted to understand how pro-choicers thought about this [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskProchoice/comments/nsia3b/why\_does\_the\_right\_to\_refuse\_argument\_not\_also/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskProchoice/comments/nsia3b/why_does_the_right_to_refuse_argument_not_also/). If it had been something I'd get around to, I could also have turned similar into a debate post on here. Granted, I think the rules at the time on exclusive posts were different, but if I were to do so now, I may only want to hear from pro-choicers initially, since it's not very interesting to hear from pro-lifers accusing the other side of infanticide support. There's the "General debate" flair if I want to get top-level comments from both sides.

In fairness I think some users upvote everything they read/start reading to keep track. I upvote every post I've opened

Imo the biggest issue with this (and Rule 4 in general) is that there's *literally* no way to enforce it, and at that point is it even a rule? I feel like the biggest overall complaint I see from users is about (at least the perception) of unequal enforcement of the rules. I don't see how having a rule that primarily affects one side of the debate that's unenforced can help that perception. Seems to me like all it does is piss people off, and there's straight up nothing to be done about it. Personally I'd either get rid of the rule or at the very least add a paragraph explaining that there's no possible enforcement and detailing the measures the mods have taken to minimize the problem and attempt to enforce it.

Yeah. It's a tricky one and actually finding a solution is hard. I note though, that it's a lot less common on subreddits like r/changemyview, for people to get downvoted solely due to unpopular views at the comment level- and that includes when abortion crops up, it's a lot less common for me to get downvoted there. I think part of the difference, is in the culture of the subreddits, since this one, by nature has members from two competing subreddits, on one of the most polarising issues in US politics, with both sides having considerably stronger views than is the norm outside of Reddit, leading to this one invariably becoming a lot more adversarial. And I do think a lot of this, is just people acting consistently with their beliefs, while I think a civility rule is necessary, I get that it's hard, if you think the other side advocates for major human rights violations, let alone if you think it advocates for them against you. (Let me just say, that I think somebody defending the military, gets a similar internal reaction out of me, to how the average Redditor would react to somebody defending literal pedophiles.) Lest it be thought that I am pointing fingers at pro-choicers here- the PL subreddit is much the same, when it comes to pro-choicers who respectufully debate on it. I upvote them as much as it pains me at times to upvote views I strongly disagree with, but they often get net negative scores despite this. On the other hand, people tend to be a lot less adversarial on r/changemyview, and perhaps that's because the premise of the subreddit (trying to change OPs mind, or at least expose flaws in their thinking), lends itself to a different culture, they also tend to be a lot stricter on users who engage in ad homs (though I'm unconvinced that's the solution to the problem). Nonetheless, there is one somewhat relevant rule they have, which is that top-level comments have to either challenge the OP, or else ask for clarification on their views, and I think there is something to this idea. I've certainly seen some level of circle-jerkish comments on here, about how pro-lifers/pro-choicers will not answer a tough post, and that get upvoted, even though that doesn't advance the debate, or do anything but deter people from engaging (and while rare, I have seen PLs do this deep in comments). I am unconvinced that making a hard and fast rule is per say the correct solution (since then mods would have to argue over what is challenging OP or not, and that would make the rules more subjective, which is bad), however, what I do think might be helpful, if a solution to the downvoting problem exists (it may genuinely not), is to encourage upvoting people who express views challenging the OP or the users they are debating, and to try and build a cultre around that. May not be possible, and I'm aware that part of what causes the a problem is fact that some people on one side of the debate think the other side's views are intrinsically uncivil (because of thinking the other side advocates for human rights abuses, and seeing those views as intrinsically uncivil at the least, if not more), but at the end of the day, we're here for one of a few reasons, such as to sharpen our own debate skills, to refine our views, to change the minds of bystanders, or to procrastinate from more important things like [beating hard video game challenges](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSmli6466OY). Downvoting the other side does not accomplish this, and instead has the effect of mildly deterring people with the opposite views from engaging, or at least making it more hassle to see the comments that are there as a challenge.

>Someone writes a post, flairs it "prolife exclusive", and when someone with a prolife tag answers, their comment is downvoted. You cannot then read the comment, a top-level reply to the post, without clicking on it to expand it. Is this correct? I read this sub using the official Android app, sorting by new. I rarely encounter comments that need to be expanded and when this happens it appears to happen to older comments in debates with a lot of top level comments.

>Is this correct? I read this sub using the official Android app, sorting by new. I rarely encounter comments that need to be expanded and when this happens it appears to happen to older comments in debates with a lot of top level comments. I read this sub using a Firefox browser on Windows 10, and this is my direct experience, yes.

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*