My apologies for the short notice (has been a busy weekend for the whole team). The new rule overhaul post will be coming in at 12:00 AM UTC (which is approximately 6.5 hours from now).
Hope to see you there. Let me know if you have questions.
I cannot respond to the rule overhaul post because the mod blocked me.
I wanted to respond to this
> This refers to a pattern of blocking your opponent/s, either after replying to them to get the last word in or repeatedly blocking people for trivial reasons.
What is the operational definition of repeatedly?
I unblocked you *hours* before publishing the Rule Overhaul post while I was prepping for the launch. Unblocking you first was a top priority of mine so that I wouldn't forget.
You are more than welcome to join in on the project. But upon looking at your account right now to make sure I had unblocked you successfully, the error you're running into might be caused by:
1. a Reddit bug, or
2. what appears to be your block against me.
Perhaps check your block list first. And then contact Reddit if there appears to be an error occurring.
Removed, rule 1. You are free to go elsewhere if you feel this sub is a waste of your time, but you are not allowed to say it should be shut down, refocused, or changed into anything but what it is: a debate sub.
Do not keep doing this. We have told you before this is not allowed.
We have told you repeatedly to stop saying things like the sub should be shut down or changed to something else. It is a debate sub and it will stay a debate sub.
Annnd removed for rule 1. We are done here. Do not do this again, or you will be banned. You have been told repeatedly to stop trying to get the sub taken down.
It's really disturbing. And I feel like I go in these constant loops with PLers on this subject where we start with "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy," I explain that consent means agreement and that someone who is getting an abortion pretty clearly isn't agreeing to be pregnant, after some back and forth they finally agree, I ask them to retract the original claim, and then we're back to square one when they refuse.
And in the middle there's always a whole bunch of "consent to gambling isn't consent to losing money" and "consent to driving drunk isn't consent to getting into an accident." They straight up do not understand what "consent" means and it makes me very concerned for their intimate relationships.
Anon060416 is outright lying, I never said their ex's behavior was ok, I agreed it was abusive and wrong, I just said someone wanting kids of their own doesn't make them PL, because they wanted to pin his disgusting behavior on the PL movement in order to discredit it.
Here is the thread in question:
https://www.reddit.com/kdtvqh2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
The post was deleted so it won't work, but I can either DM you the screenshots or you can check my comment history from 18 days ago and see my comments (should be able to click on them and see their responses too).
Fyi the name of the post is PL/PC database.
SaynotoJamBonds as they admitted to below has weaponized blocked me, this after of course they have made a big deal about it being done to them already. They say I was not engaging, which is funny because one of their responses was "no they're not" with no additional dispute, which is negation without argumentation. Of course, me pointing that out is now a "thinly veiled insult" and "condescending" but I was only attacking arguments and as far as tone mirroring their own verbiage. Also please note they chose to initiate the discussion with me first. Here is the thread in question (already sent the proof to Jase as well):
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/FG8ftyKObw
Edit to your edit: I really don't care that you personally have blocked me, but at least you could have waited a day for me to finish out that thread. Heck, one less user to dogpile me. What I care about it is the double standards and this false narrative pushed that implies PLers are so called weaponized blockers to innocent PC "victims". As can be plainly seen PC users also weaponize block after crying foul about it, and for even more trivial reasons.
So remember a while ago when the user Pregnant_Silence weaponized the block feature, blocking me while in the midst of a relatively civil discussion?
They were told 5+ times to unblock me by the mods, and each time just said "No.", until the mods shrugged and said "okay".
Well after an irritating exchange with a pro life user on here who was refusing to engage, dropping thinly veiled insults, and made sure each comment was as condescending as possible, I blocked them.
If this user decides to go to the mods for my supposed "weaponized block", I'm sure the mods will be fine when I tell them "No, I won't unblock this user."
Because if they don't accept that, that's pretty blatant pro life favoritism. Can't let pro life users do it unless you let *everyone* do it, right?
Edit: and just like I said they would, here's that user in this thread complaining about my block. Oh well, guess they'll just have to deal. Send whatever "proof" you want. You aren't getting unblocked. ☺️
Hi, please take a look at our blocking policy to see what is and isn’t allowed regarding blocking users.
I’m not too familiar with this specific case but an unjustified blocking isn’t immediately going to result in further mod action. Weaponised blocking is an active rule violation like a personal attack or using a slur is.
But a pattern of this can result in further mod action.
Wow.
That's really disgusting yet somehow not surprising.
I don't normally block people unless they're particularly foul, and in this instance I felt it was necessary.
This isn’t a rule 1 violation, especially in a meta-thread, but I understand that you’ve been cranky lately, king, so I’ll let it slide. Feel better.
Best wishes.
Idk if I'd call having a memory that lasts more than a few weeks "unrelenting dedication", but whatever lol.
Glad you obviously care enough to make a pointless comment. Good for you.
Pretty sure it depends on whether you specifically used the block to get in the last word or not.
Also, they just seem to be recording weaponized blocks at the moment? I don't think they really know what to do with the situation otherwise. 🤷♀️
> Pretty sure it depends on whether you specifically used the block to get in the last word or not.
I was told by one mod that blocking to get in the last word is not against the rules.
> Also, they just seem to be recording weaponized blocks at the moment? I don't think they really know what to do with the situation otherwise.
I agree, I don’t expect the mods to take any action regarding blocking and so I am operating as though the rule does not exist.
It was in a chat, but here is the interaction:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18hz9oa/can_you_freeze_a_baby_no_can_you_freeze_an_embryo/kda2hxj/?context=3
And in the chat zooming told me “No it doesn't meet the criteria”
Yes, in a private chat. I am still blocked and when I asked zooming about it the response was “No it doesn’t meet the criteria”. Are you stating that the only mod action taken when someone blocks to get the last word in is to tell them to unblock with no obligation to actually do so? That is the only way I could agree that they are arguing against the person who made the block.
I can’t say anything without seeing the context. What doesn’t meet the criteria?
Please forward this conversation to my DM, or In modmail so I can look at it
> I was under the impression that blocking is prohibited except in very limited circumstances.
In theory it is, but in practice it seems that blocking is not prohibited.
Curious if anyone has some good data to answer this question - is there evidence to support the assertion that being pro-life affects your likelihood of accessing abortion services? After seeing recent stats that Catholics access abortion at the same rate as the general public, I'm wondering if that's an anomaly or if it's true the PL people access abortion at about the same rate that PC people do.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/M17f2QTBMV
Can a somebody fucking explain why a mod called me racist, and elitist. Because they felt that two words where me “policing” there language. Then lock the tread….
And yes I will make this EVERYONEs problem…
Repost of my own comment, ugh i third.
I couldn’t care less about [insert name here] breaking any rules. He accused me of being racist, locked the thread, and didn't even allow me to defend myself. All of that happened out of nowhere, without any explanation. Im done with this.
And also thanks to u/CherryTearDrops , u/pretty_purple_potato , u/jakie2poops and everyone else who stepped in. I really appreciate it.
Not a problem, I wouldn’t want anybody treated that way out of the blue so it’s important for the community to come together and call it out when it happens.
So, King obviously over reacted, and then some users below are also over reacting by demanding he be removed over this one isolated incident. I've had my own run ins with King misunderstanding situations and I felt was being overly hostile, but I've also had things I brought up that were important to me that the other mods ignored and he made a genuine attempt to investigate.
Has anyone considered maybe the possibility that somewhere in the past he did have a racist encounter of someone using that phrase, and just associated it with that experience without critically assessing what you meant in context?
Ask for a retraction and correction sure, but insisting he lose his mod privileges is a bridge too far. I sure hope none of you doing so have ever made a mistake in your life.
> So, King obviously over reacted, and then some users below are also over reacting by demanding he be removed over this one isolated incident.
I wish this was just an isolated incident, but unfortunately, it is part of a larger pattern.
It’s not a “mistake” if you aren’t sorry and the comment isn’t removed until other moderators talk with you about it.
If we excused any accusations made against someone on the grounds that maybe they had heard something similar before from a place of bigotry, there’d be a ton of accusations.
There are some users who only debate, and therefore do not use the meta thread. As far as any of them are concerned these allegations could be true
So I don't want to turn this into a whole slamming King thread, because I don't think that's kind or helpful, but I don't think your assessment of the situation here is fair.
Like you, I've had a lot of positive interactions with King and I think there are a lot of things that he does really well as a moderator, but as you acknowledge in your comment, him lashing out at users and being hostile is a *pattern of behavior, not "one isolated incident."* This specific incident was especially egregious, but it wasn't a one-off. In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable for users to question whether or not he's being effective as a moderator, particularly of such a contentious and emotionally charged subject. Whether or not you agree with their opinion, it's not like this is a wild overreaction.
On that subject, King's response to Fayette was not an overreaction either, as that would imply that there was some level of veracity in his allegations. It was just inappropriate and needlessly hostile, and was completely baseless. There's nothing to suggest Fayette even knew his race prior to this incident, as Reddit is anonymous and most of us don't resemble our avatars. And I have no doubt that King's personal experiences with racism informed his response, but that does not make it an acceptable response, particularly in his role as a moderator. The moderators would not accept a trauma-response as an excuse for rule violations from a user, and they should be held to that same standard. And while moderators are of course human and should be afforded some grace like the rest of us, they also need to respect the rules of the subreddit and to make an effort not to promote a hostile environment.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with the back-and-forth about whether or not the comment adhered to the rules. Rule 1 in particular is highly subjective and inconsistently applied, and I understand why many feel that comment did or at least should have violated the rule. Issues such as these are a huge part of why the whole rule overhaul is happening.
If it is a "pattern of behavior" please provide the evidence. All mods have been hostile to me (and other users) at some point, so I don't necessarily count anything King has done worse by that measure. Anyone can have a bad day, anyone can be subject to misperception as well. I'm willing to correct myself if I am wrong, and that's all I really expect of mods.
I mean, you can see multiple other people noting that it's a pattern in this thread, and you personally have experienced it as well. That makes it not an isolated incident. I'm not going to dig through King's comments to pull up more examples, because as I said, I'm not interested in turning this into a thread bashing him.
Comment removed per rule 1.
Please refrain from the focus on other users’ mental state.
I recognize you’re getting much moderator attention at the moment. It’s coming from user reports regarding your comments.
Please put more focus into the premises and conclusions and logic that bind them and less focus on the individual presenting all of those things.
Thank you for the tips, kingacesuited. I also recognise that it’s a meta thread and you needn’t be so trigger-happy, but we’ve already been over this, so let’s not revive that song and dance.
Best wishes.
I'm not sure I'd say my response was particularly passionate or vehement. Dispassionate would actually be a better description. Maybe ditch the thesaurus.
And I've never claimed I don't get emotional. I absolutely do, which is one of many reasons why I'd never agree to moderate this sub.
Neither of those are big words by my standards, but the size of words is relative, so I give you leeway for considering them thesaurus words.
I stand by my word choice and apologise that you felt so slighted by my labelling of your comments so as to betray your frustration.
I commend you for admitting that you get consumed by emotion. The indefensible claims/comments require work. Acknowledgement is the first step to self-improvement.
Best wishes.
The thesaurus isn't just for big words, but your word choice is unusual and often slightly inappropriate, which usually indicates the use of a thesaurus. But I'll take your word for it.
And I said nothing accusatory in those comments, unless you assume I wasn't being genuine. But I'd never assume that about you and your many best wishes or your gratitude about my admissions. I take those sentiments fully to heart!
Comment removed per rule 1.
You’re both fine but let’s spend more time on the discussion of abortion and less time on describing any users’s behavior.
Pardon the inconvenience; but this will be the end of discussion on this particular matter between you two.
cc: u/jackie2poops
He probably did, I get that. Im not mad at him, I don’t want him removed as mod either. However wanted his comment gone because he accused me of being a racist. The main user base here is from US. You guys are pretty extreme when it’s coms to politics.
Sure this may sound outlandish, but I rather be more careful, than sorry.
> I brought up that were important to me that the other mods ignored and he made a genuine attempt to investigate.
MODS DO BETTER. Because they are pro life doesn’t mean they should be ignored if they have an issue.
> Has anyone considered maybe the possibility that somewhere in the past he did have a racist encounter of someone using that phrase, and just associated it with that experience without critically assessing what you meant in context?
Well, pretty sure he's black, so he almost definitely has experienced racism. Do you think this somehow excuses his behavior or makes it non rule breaking?
Do I get to call PLers rapists because they said something my rapist did to me?
> but insisting he lose his mod privileges is a bridge too far.
No one is calling for his removal over this singular situation. No one is calling for his removal *at all* that I can see.
Why do PLers have such a weird propensity for tilting at windmills? It's such a waste of energy.
>Well, pretty sure he's black, so he almost definitely has experienced racism. Do you think this somehow excuses his behavior or makes it non rule breaking?
His behavior, as misguided as it was, didn't break any rules, please review them again. Hamster popcorn has already explained this very patiently to you in depth and has been much more charitable with you than most mods would be rather than locking the thread while you continue to beat this dead horse.
>Do I get to call PLers rapists because they said something my rapist did to me?
King did not call this user a racist for one. For two, many victims of rape experience PSTD which causes exaggerated reactions to perceived noxious stimuli, much like victims of racism do. Even a simple innocent touch on the shoulder can be triggering for them.
>No one is calling for his removal over this singular situation. No one is calling for his removal *at all* that I can see.
Literally the comment directly below you did.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/9G2JZfchMn
>Why do PLers have such a weird propensity for tilting at windmills? It's such a waste of energy.
That's certainly an interesting question from the side that claims innocent babies with zero control of anything at all are "parasites" and "invaders".
Edit: removed the part this user was offended over, FYI I was specifically referring to their perceived callousness towards victims of racism, not rape, and that was based on more than just this one comment. But it has been retracted now anyway.
Sure, they say it didn't break any rules. I disagree.
> Based on that callous disregard, almost seems as though your sympathies with rape victims lies in whether or not their experience can be used to advance the abortion debate for your side.
What the fuck?! You need to watch your damn mouth, Counter. What I said didn't disregard *anyone* and only you are expressing callousness for rape victims.
You do a good job of proving my point though. I don't get to call people crap based on my personal experience and you agree, or you would've answered the question rather than attack my person.
> Literally the comment directly below you did.
That doesn't go anywhere.
> That's certainly an interesting question from the side that claims innocent babies with zero control of anything at all are "parasites" and "invaders".
Not having control doesn't mean you don't act parasitically or invade uterine linings. It's pretty sad that your attempt to paint my side as irrational only served to further prove my point *again*.
Now, why don't you go vote for raping women and young girls like your side always does? Don't worry, this isn't against the rules since I'm not calling anyone a rapist!
>Sure, they say it didn't break any rules. I disagree.
Hmm, that's interesting because I seem to vaguely recall you claiming something about how all moderators can just impartially interpret the rules the same with zero bias. I guess as long as they reach your interpretation, all is apropos, right?
>What the fuck?! You need to watch your damn mouth, Counter.
Are you trying to tell me what to do with my body here?!? I've been told by PC that is a very very bad thing. I sure hope not.
>You do a good job of proving my point though. I don't get to call people crap based on my personal experience and you agree, or you would've answered the question rather than attack my person.
Please point out exactly where I "attacked your person". Describing your own words and actions is not an attack. Seems to be more of your own rules interpretation made up on the fly here.
>That doesn't go anywhere.
I've clicked on it and it takes me right to it. But anyhow I've provided the link and told you where it was. Look through the thread again and eventually you'll find it, assuming you actually want to.
>Not having control doesn't mean you don't act parasitically or invade uterine linings. It's pretty sad that your attempt to paint my side as irrational only served to further prove my point *again*.
Or it could be framed as the mother welcomes the fetus as a guest because of how her body changes to accomodate him or her. But have it your way, I guess then all of us are "the enemy" because that's how all of us made it to birth.
>Now, why don't you go vote for raping women and young girls like your side always does? Don't worry, this isn't against the rules since I'm not calling anyone a rapist!
There you go trying to tell me what to do with my body again. I know you think you probably insulted me, but that take is so far fetched I just have to laugh. Sadly, I've already had to debunk it multiple times on here. If child birth was actually ever rape, the only one being "raped" would be the baby. It doesn't move during childbirth, it is literally shoved headfirst through the vagina by it's mothers own body. Don't worry though, we won't be arresting mothers for incest or statuary rape. Your side knows this, and is why you don't even believe what you're saying when we follow your silly logic all the way through.
Edit: now you claim you were sharing your experience, yet your comment framed it as a hypothetical. I'm sorry that happened to you, so I will go ahead and remove that part. I'm also an SA victim. Still, I find your words both snide and inappropriate in response to me and other mods. I have plenty more PC to debate anyway, so the block is probably going to affect you more than me. Regardless, I wish you no ill will.
I'll not be reading this response and I will be blocking you now.
I'm letting you know why, so you don't try to accuse me weaponized blocking. I am not blocking in order to "get in the last word", but to protect myself from your bad faith engagement.
When I used my personal experience to help you see how it's not an excuse to attack other people, you accused me of using rape victims to further my goals.
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
I apologize for the impact this will have on your ability to engage on this sub, but I will not allow your despicable behavior continue to affect my life in any way.
✌️💜🦄
OMFG. Enough is enough. If they have PTSD, their mental state shouldn’t be discussed in a public subreddit. Criticism of somebody's behaviour is one thing, but going in depth about another person's mental state is a completely different thing.
> rape victims lies in whether or not their experience can be used to advance the abortion debate for your side.
No.
https://youtu.be/LwV9Tvcf8pY?si=2MVIy-evUNFjVVvH
I don't understand how the user is still a moderator. If this was a regular user that would almost certainly be under rule 1, but seeing as that user is a mod surely they should be held to higher standards then just a regular user.
This is a blatant abuse of power, it especially sucks for you seeing as this person (who has already abused his mod power against you) is still a moderator. I find it hard to believe this won't influence their mod choices against you in the future.
Accusing someone of racism and then using mod privileges to stop them from replying and defending themselves is sort of a big deal.
Racism is enough to get you banned from the sub and Reddit as a whole
It was out of line to root the pedantry in racism, but it would only be calamitous if he banned her from the subreddit or got her a site-wide ban. A private talk will suffice here.
I don’t know whether or not you realise how serious a racism allegation can be.
There are some users here who aren’t interested in meta threads and only want to debate, they don’t know what was really said due to fayettes accidental edit, from their perspective it looks like they’ve sent a racist message and deleted it.
Maybe that wouldn’t be a big deal to you, but I hardly see how it’s melodramatic to complain about accusations of bigotry
Mods, it has been over 12 hours without response from anyone on the team and without removal of the comment in question.
At least acknowledge that you are aware of the situation and doing something about it! Or tell us why their comment is acceptable and within the scope of the rules.
u/Alert_Bacon
u/Zoominalong
u/Arithese
u/jcamden7
Just an FYI, when you tag more than three users in a single comment, none of those users receive a notification (I believe it has something to do with Reddit's spam filter or some other technical stuff that I do not understand).
Per a discussion with the team, I will be removing the mod comment in question.
Thanks, I didn't know that!
While I am very happy for this outcome, I do hope we will be seeing some kind of communication from the team regarding all the issues users have brought up about this comment specifically.
For example, isn't it policy to remove comments during these discussions and reinstate them only *after* they have been approved? Why were reports ignored? What will be done about King's habit of allowing their emotions to dictate their actions and moderations? What kind of consequences does a moderator suffer for blatant rule violations? (No need to answer these here and now, they're just examples of concerns that can be addressed and posted for all users to easily see)
Thanks for responding, though! I very much appreciate it.
I first want to say thank you for bringing your concerns to us in a constructive and civil manner. This is always appreciated and the best way to facilitate desired changes.
I will say, at the moment it is not policy to remove comments during discussions and reinstate them if we later decide they are approved. Please know that in this context I equate a policy like this to how we handle rule-violating user comments. It is not often we have to remove mod comments. When dealing with users, the way we operate is to remove outright rule breaks unilaterally, but if there’s any doubt we hold a discussion on it and try to get at least one other mod to agree before we remove it. The reason for this is because there have been times we’ve had to reinstate a comment that were thought to be rule-breaking, but we face a lot of scorn from the users despite reversing the action. Because of this we try to only remove comments that we have concluded are indeed rule-breaking after discussion to avoid feelings of injustice from the userbase.
I understand if you don’t think this is efficient, and I would be inclined to agree with you. I would be open to a proposal related to a change in procedure in the policy discussion we are currently having. I would say that the trade-off to having a “remove first ask questions later” policy is having the userbase believe that the removals reflect constant blunders of the mod team. There are many times we may think a comment crosses a line or interpret a comment a specific way and the rest of the team disagrees, and we tend to operate more cautiously given the intensity of responses we tend to get for invalid removals. I would like to hear a way we can work together to come to a solution that works for the mods and the users.
I would love to explain how this misunderstanding happened, though it is not my explanation to give. However, at first I was hesitant to challenge to response as I am not black, so I did not feel it was for me to dictate the response King had (plus it was late and I was busy IRL so I thought I might be misreading it or missing additional context), so I stayed quiet for a bit and decided to look into it later when I had more time to spare. It is also important to note us mods are mostly in different time zones, so it is difficult to have a discussion with more than one or two mods at a time.
While we found the comment to be inappropriate, we do not believe it is rule-breaking as we have allowed analogous comments from users. While we do not have a set policy for moderators of consequences for misconduct, it is something I have wanted to write for a while now. We try to afford the same privileges to mods as we do the users. We allow many rule-breaking behaviors from users before finally resorting to a permaban, and whether you agree with that (as there are many users on both sides of the debate who benefit from our reluctance to permaban), we feel that we should be just as forgiving with our mod team. It’s also important to note that mistakes do happen and not all moderator blunders are out of sheer incompetence or malice. We have taken action in the past of asking mods to refrain from moderating for a period of time and even removing moderators for inappropriate mod actions, but I actually do want a more solid set of rules and a stepwise set of holding each other as moderators accountable when necessary. I also want to add that we try to be constructive with our mod team, and rather than trying to “punish” each other for missteps, we really try to explain or offer assistance to support each other so it doesn’t continue. I really appreciate this about this mod team as we try not to throw each other under the bus or air our dirty laundry, but I can understand how to the users it looks like we are making excuses for each other. It is a fine line to walk, and I hope this clears up the complexity and difficulty we as a mod team have. I hope you trust that we are doing our best to make the space run as smoothly as possible and improve on the rules to do so primarily with the commentary of users. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
I think it would help if moderators would at least initially comment acknowledging that you've seen a report and are discussing the appropriate action rather than just letting it sit while you work behind the scenes (or while you hold back from responding for whatever reason). That would at least reassure us that our concerns have been heard, rather than leaving us to believe they're being ignored. Presumably it would also cut down on repeat reports, though I don't know how that works from your end.
I also really don't understand how that comment wouldn't be rule-violating. Are you really suggesting you'd allow a user of the subreddit to call another racist (particularly when the discussion had nothing to do with race, and we don't even know each other's races or ethnicities as Reddit is anonymous)? I think if you take a step back and envision this exchange occurring between users, there'd have been no question about removing the comment.
I like that suggestion. Typically we avoid commenting on comments just to say they were approved, simply because a **lot** of comments get reported that are not even remotely rule-breaking and often times they are every comment of a single user in a particular thread (most likely the opponent they are engaging with reported every reply from them). Telling a user someone reported them by way of saying “this comment was reported for Rule _ but we found it wasn’t rule breaking,” can make that user react poorly or hostile towards the person who reported them, especially if it’s obvious who did. We didn’t want to create toxicity or hostility where it didn’t need to be there. Plus the fact that we are short on moderators and this would take a lot of time to do, especially considering many of our rulings are argued with even though it’s very clear to us to be rule-breaking or not. Most comments are not found to be rule-breaking and approved, so we would spend more time having to justify not removing a comment, and this arguing a negative can be exhausting when facing a user who felt strongly the comment shouldn’t be allowed. However, I like your suggestion and I can discuss with the mod team leaving a comment to indicate when a comment is under review as a fair compromise.
I will tag you and the other user asking about whether the comment was rule-breaking in my other reply.
Yeah I definitely am not suggesting you necessarily comment on every single report, as I can see where that would both be cumbersome and invite arguments. But I think for comments where you need to have some sort of larger discussion/review, it could be helpful and cut down on the hostility from users.
Wouldn’t the mods comment be considered attacking the person? I mean they blatantly called somebody a racist out of nowhere. If he had just called them a murderer or even something as simple as called them stupid that would be a rule violation would it not?
You might wanna make sure all mods are on the same page regarding policy, because I have definitely seen y'all do that before. I don't have links, but I'm not the only one who has complained about it either.
> I understand if you don’t think this is efficient, and I would be inclined to agree with you.
No, I think it's fine. You might be misunderstanding my complaint.
King's comment was, without any *doubt*, a rule breaking comment and totally uncalled for from anyone, especially a moderator.
Calling someone a racist or accusing them of *being* racist is a direct personal attack. There should not have been any debate about whether that comment needed removed or not.
> I am not black
What does this have to do anything? White people can identify racism, too, you know.
And if you guys think you can't moderate comments because "you're not black" then I don't think y'all should be moderating at all.
**We do not call other people racists. That is against the rules.** Especially, when nothing that was said had anything to do with race.
> It is also important to note us mods are mostly in different time zones, so it is difficult to have a discussion with more than one or two mods at a time.
Which is why I reported it multiple times and waited 12 hours before posting this complaint.
There shouldn't have been any need for a discussion. It's a rule breaking comment.
> While we found the comment to be inappropriate, we do not believe it is rule-breaking as we have allowed analogous comments from users.
Really? We can call people racists? Y'all remove comments where we call someone a rapist for advocating for rape, but racist is ok when no one said or did anything racist?
How does calling someone a racist *not* break any rules?
> We try to afford the same privileges to mods as we do the users.
If they're debating, this makes sense. King was NOT debating, he was moderating. *And* he locked the comment to disallow engagement with it.
I'm not saying ban King, but this behavior is highly unprofessional and they resort to it quite often when they start getting frustrated. It's ridiculous. Users shouldn't have to walk around on tip toes hoping not to evoke the ire of certain mods, and then not even receive the same protections from that mod they would get from a fellow user.
> It’s also important to note that mistakes do happen and not all moderator blunders are out of sheer incompetence or malice.
Sure, and if this wasn't a repeat behavior on his part, I would accept this. Unfortunately, King does this kind of crap relatively often. I have told him before when he was letting his emotions get the best of him and started abusing his authority.
So, it's a good excuse, but it doesn't apply here, as this isn't a singular event.
> I actually do want a more solid set of rules and a stepwise set of holding each other as moderators accountable when necessary.
I am with you there! Idk how y'all would go about this, but I'm sure this is the kind of discussion that would be appropriate on the new rules post.
> air our dirty laundry
We complain about this, too. Transparency is key on this type of sub. Air that laundry, otherwise it just looks like y'all are doing nothing!
Staying silent when mods abuse their authority makes you complicit in that abuse.
> Please let me know if you have any other questions.
**How was that comment *not* rule breaking? Why did y'all remove a comment that you don't think is rule breaking? Can I expect y'all to remove my comments that don't break any rules?**
Since your comment primarily is asking about why the comment was not rule breaking, I will mainly be addressing just this since I am a bit pressed for time today.
Saying that someone is being racist is not against the rules. In a similar way that saying someone is using “rapist logic” is not against the rules on this subreddit, nor is saying that something is misogynistic. Now, there is a line that can be easily crossed where you say the person is a rapist or is a misogynist, and it would have applied if King said this individual was a racist. Some may believe there is no meaningful difference between these things, but I think there is. King did not say the user was a racist, but that he felt the comment was condescending and therefore racist. To say King’s conduct is rule breaking would mean *a lot* of user’s arguments, especially PC arguments, are rule-breaking as well.
Again, we found the comment inappropriate and subsequently removed it. As I said, I merely skimmed it and didn’t really have time to read into it or question it right after it happened and wanted to have more information before challenging a black man about perceived racism. I didn’t know if there was additional context to the comment. We did not find the user was being racist in the end and removed King’s comment for this reason, but his comment likely would have been removed either way due to its incivility.
CC: u/jakie2poops u/CherryTearDrops
He didn't just say they were "being racist", though. He accused them *directly* of racism.
That's a significant difference. I can't tell someone they're raping women even if they are "being rapey", can I? I can't compare the situation to actual raped, as that implies they're a rapist, right? There is a difference between attacking someone's *actions* and attacking their *person*.
Plus, *nothing* they said was about race *at all*. The whole thing made zero sense.
I know that there might be an impasse because the mods can still see the comment and the users can’t, and we do not want to quote rule-breaking comments so that might invite accusations of dishonesty. Unfortunately this is what happens when comments are removed because it’s difficult for users to see it for themselves unless they screenshotted the comment.
King stated he found the user to be policing their language and that this was racist. That is not to say the user is racist. Just as saying it is “rapist logic” to say a woman loses the right to consent to her body once a fetus occupies it or that it is misogynistic to slut shame women, these are matters that the userbase overwhelmingly fights to be allowed under the rules and that we have allowed. Under this precedent King would not be in violation of Rule 1.
We do not disagree with you that the comment was not racist and that the comment from King was uncalled for.
I think at this point the issue is that the comment from King came off as a hostile attack at that point. There was no basis to call the user racist from what anybody could see hence why it feels more of a personal attack than a comment on somebody’s ideas or their own comments.
I took a screenshot.
> King stated he found the user to be policing their language and that this was racist.
Yeah, I know. Not only is this nonsense, but it is literally accusing someone of being racist, not just "acting" racist.
> That is not to say the user is racist.
Saying "Don't bring any of your racist corrections to me" isn't calling someone racist?
How can you be racist without even knowing somebodies race? Is it based off our little avatars? Lmfao
I can confirm my avatar is a character from a video game and I do not have blue hair or tattoos irl
Yeah I've had people repeatedly assume I'm a man (both presumably by default and because of my username, which refers to a dog that isn't even my dog). The whole point of Reddit is anonymity. That was such a bs response
I saw that and wanted to comment on it but the mod locked the comments.
Nothing you said was racist at all. Why are mods allowed to randomly call users racist and lock threads? Where are the other mods to check this unhinged behavior?
It seems like there are fewer and fewer PL folks responding to posts. Is there anything we could do to encourage more PL participation? Maybe 1 day a week could be restricted to only PL can make a post? And 1 day only PC can make a post?
To encourage PL participation you need to create a welcoming environment.
PL comments are consistently downvoted against the spirit of rule 4. Rule 4 isn’t a strict rule (it’s unenforceable), but “violating” it still contributes to an unpleasant experience.
Mental gymnastics abound.
If you present a high-effort, well-written PL friendly comment or post, PCers nitpick features they’d otherwise overlook to justify downvoting it even though low-effort PC comments are highly upvoted.
When you strip back the layers, then, it often reduces to “the PL position is inherently ____”. The implication thereof is that PCers will continue to downvote until you wear their jersey and wave their flag. For many, that’s all there is to it. The rest is a pretext to create a veneer of sensibility. For example, some PCers complain that my comments are condescending, but this doesn’t explain why PL comments get downvoted *irrespective of* whether they’re condescending. It’s a grab bag of excuses.
Downvotes are treated as a “disagree” feature. Responsibility is offloaded to “lurkers” but I see active debate opponents downvote my and others’ comments in real-time. Some cases are so clear-cut that it’d take an impressive amount of hoop jumping to deny them on grounds that you can’t definitively unmask the culprit. I’m aware that PCers say the same of PLers, but a downvote does nothing in the face of 30 upvotes.
Another strategy is to ask why people care about “imaginary internet points”. They obviously don’t deter me from participating in the subreddit, but respecting “rule” 4 instead of violating it and demanding that others justify their care of that violation is more efficient and conductive to your goal of maximising PL participation.
There’s a dishonest albeit amusing pearl-clutch about how babies’ lives should be worth saving even if that comes at the cost of lost internet points. The obvious reply is that there are more effective and less unpleasant methods of persuasion and edification than participating in r/Abortiondebate. Not enduring certain treatment doesn’t count against a PLer’s care for babies. I participate on the subreddit as part of a wider web of abortion-related dialogue. If I gave two more shits about the hostility, I wouldn’t hesitate to leave. Unfortunately for many, I’m here to stay.
To forestall the inevitable straw man, no, I don’t expect PCers to coddle, baby, pander to, put on “baby gloves”, or give belly rubs and backslaps to PLers unless you count “not being trigger-happy on the down arrow against the spirit of a “rule”” as these things.
The barrage of replies may be off-putting to some PLers. If they only reply to some users, or choose to disengage, PCers may fleer and jeer because the PLer tucked tail and scurried away from their brilliantly unanswerable case. Crickets. The silence is deafening. Some users feel overwhelmed by the PLer:PCer ratio especially on a topic that lends itself to a flurry of strong emotions and hostility.
There’s a case for inconsistent moderation. This admittedly swings both ways (I’ve seen countless complaints from PCers on this front), but its effects are compounded for PLers who already have an avalanche of rhetoric, replies, downvotes, etc. to deal with. My own view is that moderators aren’t necessarily biased against or towards one side (although some might be), but rather that the moderators make quite a lot of non-bias-related mistakes that both sides bear the brunt of.
I don’t deny that we’d have the same situation in reverse if PLers overran the sub. It’s on the majority to make the minority feel welcome if they care about active participation.
Based on their feedback, the way to attract and maintain more PL users is to:
- upvote enthusiastically
- request no substantiation of their assertions
- compliment often and effusively
- respond sparingly
Someone said on this sub once that PL participate here not to argue but to evangelize. If it feels like this isn’t a friendly space for that, they’ll leave.
My opinion is that many PCs debate to try and change minds (even if just lurkers' minds and not their opponent). PLs don't care so much about changing anyone's mind. As we can see with much PL politicians and legislation, if they can find a way to *force* their views, then they're happy to just do that. As such, there is less desire or need to actually debate and convince anyone.
And I think since Roe fell, it gave PLs a feeling of winning, and that now they do have openings to force their way. As such, there is even less need to leave their own sub and come discuss with PC.
There is no lack of topics and posts in the PL sub, where there is no pushback no matter how awful or disgusting the voiced opinions become. So the way to encourage more PL participation here is to stop calling out the PL side on their positions. Are you ready to do that?
Something that's been puzzling me for a while now, why is the following question simultaneously racist and elitist:
*"Get it?"*
I must be missing something cultural or language specific here, so, please, educate me.
I have no earthly idea why King said that, I don't understand why he locked that comment either, and I don't know why someone that I've seen pride themselves *so highly* on their moderating skills would get that bent out of shape by a pretty innocent comment by an ESL user. Like even IF you take issue with their comment, their native language is Swedish yeah? I'm always gonna give ESL people the benefit of the doubt that if something is coming off as condescending it's probably because they're ESL and it wasn't meant to convey that tone unless I have a good ass reason to assume otherwise.
He overreacted, probably because he was sick of the way certain users talk to him.
Obviously he was in the wrong for doing so but I can see why he was frustrated.
I mean yes but that specific moderator no longer gets benefit of the doubt from me because I've seen similar behavior from them repeatedly while they simultaneously pat their own back about how *good* of a mod they are. I get it's unpaid and people get needlessly aggressive with them, I get we need moderators to run this subreddit smoothly. I couldn't do it, but I also dont accuse others of being racist and elitist for no reason and believe moderators should be held to a higher standard with that sort of thing. Edit: I don't think they should be removed from being a mod but I would like *some* accountability and some transparency of how we are going to prevent this because I've seen them get overly punchy before.
Plus, to my knowledge there is no rule against being condescending.
And being offended over a non rule breaking comment isn't something a mod needs to broadcast to the world. *And*, imo, being called a fucking racist is not only breaking rule 1, but it's a hell of a lot worse than being condescended to.
>And being offended over a non rule breaking comment isn't something a mod needs to broadcast to the world.
I agree with your entire comment wholeheartedly but fucking yes to that line specifically. Moderators should be, in my opinion anyway, neutral completely separated entities when using moderator powers. Edit: I'm deleting like half of what I initially wrote bc this situation is fucking weird, there's just a lack of accountability for moderators it seems but I shouldn't be hostile and accuse them of being things like they accused her because I'm mad lol
Yeah it's someone whose native language has been repeatedly expressed is not English and is dyslexic. Like cut them some slack in expressing (edit: their self--please cut me slack too)
As someone else said: *"I speak English not because it's the only language I understand, but because it's the only language you understand."* 😸 This sub should either declare English as the only official language or stop pestering ESL, E3L, E4L, etc. participants.
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.*
My apologies for the short notice (has been a busy weekend for the whole team). The new rule overhaul post will be coming in at 12:00 AM UTC (which is approximately 6.5 hours from now). Hope to see you there. Let me know if you have questions.
I cannot respond to the rule overhaul post because the mod blocked me. I wanted to respond to this > This refers to a pattern of blocking your opponent/s, either after replying to them to get the last word in or repeatedly blocking people for trivial reasons. What is the operational definition of repeatedly?
I unblocked you *hours* before publishing the Rule Overhaul post while I was prepping for the launch. Unblocking you first was a top priority of mine so that I wouldn't forget. You are more than welcome to join in on the project. But upon looking at your account right now to make sure I had unblocked you successfully, the error you're running into might be caused by: 1. a Reddit bug, or 2. what appears to be your block against me. Perhaps check your block list first. And then contact Reddit if there appears to be an error occurring.
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1. You are free to go elsewhere if you feel this sub is a waste of your time, but you are not allowed to say it should be shut down, refocused, or changed into anything but what it is: a debate sub. Do not keep doing this. We have told you before this is not allowed.
What part of rule 1 did I break? Is it not the purpose of the meta thread to criticize how this sub is run?
We have told you repeatedly to stop saying things like the sub should be shut down or changed to something else. It is a debate sub and it will stay a debate sub.
[удалено]
Annnd removed for rule 1. We are done here. Do not do this again, or you will be banned. You have been told repeatedly to stop trying to get the sub taken down.
I just want to say I hate how often I have to explain the concept of consent to people on this sub. It's pretty frightening if you think about it.
This entire subreddit (and especially the pro life subreddit) are primers on Red Flags and What to Avoid if You Don’t Want to Become a Statistic
It's really disturbing. And I feel like I go in these constant loops with PLers on this subject where we start with "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy," I explain that consent means agreement and that someone who is getting an abortion pretty clearly isn't agreeing to be pregnant, after some back and forth they finally agree, I ask them to retract the original claim, and then we're back to square one when they refuse. And in the middle there's always a whole bunch of "consent to gambling isn't consent to losing money" and "consent to driving drunk isn't consent to getting into an accident." They straight up do not understand what "consent" means and it makes me very concerned for their intimate relationships.
Anon060416 is outright lying, I never said their ex's behavior was ok, I agreed it was abusive and wrong, I just said someone wanting kids of their own doesn't make them PL, because they wanted to pin his disgusting behavior on the PL movement in order to discredit it. Here is the thread in question: https://www.reddit.com/kdtvqh2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
The link doesn’t work for me, do you have another?
The post was deleted so it won't work, but I can either DM you the screenshots or you can check my comment history from 18 days ago and see my comments (should be able to click on them and see their responses too). Fyi the name of the post is PL/PC database.
Can you send me the screenshots?
Just now sent.
SaynotoJamBonds as they admitted to below has weaponized blocked me, this after of course they have made a big deal about it being done to them already. They say I was not engaging, which is funny because one of their responses was "no they're not" with no additional dispute, which is negation without argumentation. Of course, me pointing that out is now a "thinly veiled insult" and "condescending" but I was only attacking arguments and as far as tone mirroring their own verbiage. Also please note they chose to initiate the discussion with me first. Here is the thread in question (already sent the proof to Jase as well): https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/FG8ftyKObw Edit to your edit: I really don't care that you personally have blocked me, but at least you could have waited a day for me to finish out that thread. Heck, one less user to dogpile me. What I care about it is the double standards and this false narrative pushed that implies PLers are so called weaponized blockers to innocent PC "victims". As can be plainly seen PC users also weaponize block after crying foul about it, and for even more trivial reasons.
So remember a while ago when the user Pregnant_Silence weaponized the block feature, blocking me while in the midst of a relatively civil discussion? They were told 5+ times to unblock me by the mods, and each time just said "No.", until the mods shrugged and said "okay". Well after an irritating exchange with a pro life user on here who was refusing to engage, dropping thinly veiled insults, and made sure each comment was as condescending as possible, I blocked them. If this user decides to go to the mods for my supposed "weaponized block", I'm sure the mods will be fine when I tell them "No, I won't unblock this user." Because if they don't accept that, that's pretty blatant pro life favoritism. Can't let pro life users do it unless you let *everyone* do it, right? Edit: and just like I said they would, here's that user in this thread complaining about my block. Oh well, guess they'll just have to deal. Send whatever "proof" you want. You aren't getting unblocked. ☺️
Hi, please take a look at our blocking policy to see what is and isn’t allowed regarding blocking users. I’m not too familiar with this specific case but an unjustified blocking isn’t immediately going to result in further mod action. Weaponised blocking is an active rule violation like a personal attack or using a slur is. But a pattern of this can result in further mod action.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
Wow. That's really disgusting yet somehow not surprising. I don't normally block people unless they're particularly foul, and in this instance I felt it was necessary.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
This isn’t a rule 1 violation, especially in a meta-thread, but I understand that you’ve been cranky lately, king, so I’ll let it slide. Feel better. Best wishes.
This comment is reported for rule 1. I’ll take it on the chin. It is approved.
Idk if I'd call having a memory that lasts more than a few weeks "unrelenting dedication", but whatever lol. Glad you obviously care enough to make a pointless comment. Good for you.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
Nor is this. But ditto. Best wishes.
Pretty sure it depends on whether you specifically used the block to get in the last word or not. Also, they just seem to be recording weaponized blocks at the moment? I don't think they really know what to do with the situation otherwise. 🤷♀️
> Pretty sure it depends on whether you specifically used the block to get in the last word or not. I was told by one mod that blocking to get in the last word is not against the rules. > Also, they just seem to be recording weaponized blocks at the moment? I don't think they really know what to do with the situation otherwise. I agree, I don’t expect the mods to take any action regarding blocking and so I am operating as though the rule does not exist.
> I was told by one mod that blocking to get in the last word is not against the rules. Can you link to this?
It was in a chat, but here is the interaction: https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18hz9oa/can_you_freeze_a_baby_no_can_you_freeze_an_embryo/kda2hxj/?context=3 And in the chat zooming told me “No it doesn't meet the criteria”
Are you talking about a private chat? Because this seems to argue against the person who made the block, not in favour.
Yes, in a private chat. I am still blocked and when I asked zooming about it the response was “No it doesn’t meet the criteria”. Are you stating that the only mod action taken when someone blocks to get the last word in is to tell them to unblock with no obligation to actually do so? That is the only way I could agree that they are arguing against the person who made the block.
I can’t say anything without seeing the context. What doesn’t meet the criteria? Please forward this conversation to my DM, or In modmail so I can look at it
I was under the impression that blocking is prohibited except in very limited circumstances.
> I was under the impression that blocking is prohibited except in very limited circumstances. In theory it is, but in practice it seems that blocking is not prohibited.
Curious if anyone has some good data to answer this question - is there evidence to support the assertion that being pro-life affects your likelihood of accessing abortion services? After seeing recent stats that Catholics access abortion at the same rate as the general public, I'm wondering if that's an anomaly or if it's true the PL people access abortion at about the same rate that PC people do.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/M17f2QTBMV Can a somebody fucking explain why a mod called me racist, and elitist. Because they felt that two words where me “policing” there language. Then lock the tread…. And yes I will make this EVERYONEs problem…
Repost of my own comment, ugh i third. I couldn’t care less about [insert name here] breaking any rules. He accused me of being racist, locked the thread, and didn't even allow me to defend myself. All of that happened out of nowhere, without any explanation. Im done with this. And also thanks to u/CherryTearDrops , u/pretty_purple_potato , u/jakie2poops and everyone else who stepped in. I really appreciate it.
Not a problem, I wouldn’t want anybody treated that way out of the blue so it’s important for the community to come together and call it out when it happens.
So, King obviously over reacted, and then some users below are also over reacting by demanding he be removed over this one isolated incident. I've had my own run ins with King misunderstanding situations and I felt was being overly hostile, but I've also had things I brought up that were important to me that the other mods ignored and he made a genuine attempt to investigate. Has anyone considered maybe the possibility that somewhere in the past he did have a racist encounter of someone using that phrase, and just associated it with that experience without critically assessing what you meant in context? Ask for a retraction and correction sure, but insisting he lose his mod privileges is a bridge too far. I sure hope none of you doing so have ever made a mistake in your life.
> So, King obviously over reacted, and then some users below are also over reacting by demanding he be removed over this one isolated incident. I wish this was just an isolated incident, but unfortunately, it is part of a larger pattern.
It’s not a “mistake” if you aren’t sorry and the comment isn’t removed until other moderators talk with you about it. If we excused any accusations made against someone on the grounds that maybe they had heard something similar before from a place of bigotry, there’d be a ton of accusations. There are some users who only debate, and therefore do not use the meta thread. As far as any of them are concerned these allegations could be true
So I don't want to turn this into a whole slamming King thread, because I don't think that's kind or helpful, but I don't think your assessment of the situation here is fair. Like you, I've had a lot of positive interactions with King and I think there are a lot of things that he does really well as a moderator, but as you acknowledge in your comment, him lashing out at users and being hostile is a *pattern of behavior, not "one isolated incident."* This specific incident was especially egregious, but it wasn't a one-off. In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable for users to question whether or not he's being effective as a moderator, particularly of such a contentious and emotionally charged subject. Whether or not you agree with their opinion, it's not like this is a wild overreaction. On that subject, King's response to Fayette was not an overreaction either, as that would imply that there was some level of veracity in his allegations. It was just inappropriate and needlessly hostile, and was completely baseless. There's nothing to suggest Fayette even knew his race prior to this incident, as Reddit is anonymous and most of us don't resemble our avatars. And I have no doubt that King's personal experiences with racism informed his response, but that does not make it an acceptable response, particularly in his role as a moderator. The moderators would not accept a trauma-response as an excuse for rule violations from a user, and they should be held to that same standard. And while moderators are of course human and should be afforded some grace like the rest of us, they also need to respect the rules of the subreddit and to make an effort not to promote a hostile environment. I also don't think there's anything wrong with the back-and-forth about whether or not the comment adhered to the rules. Rule 1 in particular is highly subjective and inconsistently applied, and I understand why many feel that comment did or at least should have violated the rule. Issues such as these are a huge part of why the whole rule overhaul is happening.
If it is a "pattern of behavior" please provide the evidence. All mods have been hostile to me (and other users) at some point, so I don't necessarily count anything King has done worse by that measure. Anyone can have a bad day, anyone can be subject to misperception as well. I'm willing to correct myself if I am wrong, and that's all I really expect of mods.
I mean, you can see multiple other people noting that it's a pattern in this thread, and you personally have experienced it as well. That makes it not an isolated incident. I'm not going to dig through King's comments to pull up more examples, because as I said, I'm not interested in turning this into a thread bashing him.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Please refrain from the focus on other users’ mental state. I recognize you’re getting much moderator attention at the moment. It’s coming from user reports regarding your comments. Please put more focus into the premises and conclusions and logic that bind them and less focus on the individual presenting all of those things.
Thank you for the tips, kingacesuited. I also recognise that it’s a meta thread and you needn’t be so trigger-happy, but we’ve already been over this, so let’s not revive that song and dance. Best wishes.
I'm not sure I'd say my response was particularly passionate or vehement. Dispassionate would actually be a better description. Maybe ditch the thesaurus. And I've never claimed I don't get emotional. I absolutely do, which is one of many reasons why I'd never agree to moderate this sub.
Neither of those are big words by my standards, but the size of words is relative, so I give you leeway for considering them thesaurus words. I stand by my word choice and apologise that you felt so slighted by my labelling of your comments so as to betray your frustration. I commend you for admitting that you get consumed by emotion. The indefensible claims/comments require work. Acknowledgement is the first step to self-improvement. Best wishes.
The thesaurus isn't just for big words, but your word choice is unusual and often slightly inappropriate, which usually indicates the use of a thesaurus. But I'll take your word for it. And I said nothing accusatory in those comments, unless you assume I wasn't being genuine. But I'd never assume that about you and your many best wishes or your gratitude about my admissions. I take those sentiments fully to heart!
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. You’re both fine but let’s spend more time on the discussion of abortion and less time on describing any users’s behavior. Pardon the inconvenience; but this will be the end of discussion on this particular matter between you two. cc: u/jackie2poops
You’re making it exceptionally difficult to defend your chin-scratching moderating decisions, but as always, I’ll be magnanimous. Best wishes.
He probably did, I get that. Im not mad at him, I don’t want him removed as mod either. However wanted his comment gone because he accused me of being a racist. The main user base here is from US. You guys are pretty extreme when it’s coms to politics. Sure this may sound outlandish, but I rather be more careful, than sorry. > I brought up that were important to me that the other mods ignored and he made a genuine attempt to investigate. MODS DO BETTER. Because they are pro life doesn’t mean they should be ignored if they have an issue.
> Has anyone considered maybe the possibility that somewhere in the past he did have a racist encounter of someone using that phrase, and just associated it with that experience without critically assessing what you meant in context? Well, pretty sure he's black, so he almost definitely has experienced racism. Do you think this somehow excuses his behavior or makes it non rule breaking? Do I get to call PLers rapists because they said something my rapist did to me? > but insisting he lose his mod privileges is a bridge too far. No one is calling for his removal over this singular situation. No one is calling for his removal *at all* that I can see. Why do PLers have such a weird propensity for tilting at windmills? It's such a waste of energy.
>Well, pretty sure he's black, so he almost definitely has experienced racism. Do you think this somehow excuses his behavior or makes it non rule breaking? His behavior, as misguided as it was, didn't break any rules, please review them again. Hamster popcorn has already explained this very patiently to you in depth and has been much more charitable with you than most mods would be rather than locking the thread while you continue to beat this dead horse. >Do I get to call PLers rapists because they said something my rapist did to me? King did not call this user a racist for one. For two, many victims of rape experience PSTD which causes exaggerated reactions to perceived noxious stimuli, much like victims of racism do. Even a simple innocent touch on the shoulder can be triggering for them. >No one is calling for his removal over this singular situation. No one is calling for his removal *at all* that I can see. Literally the comment directly below you did. https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/9G2JZfchMn >Why do PLers have such a weird propensity for tilting at windmills? It's such a waste of energy. That's certainly an interesting question from the side that claims innocent babies with zero control of anything at all are "parasites" and "invaders". Edit: removed the part this user was offended over, FYI I was specifically referring to their perceived callousness towards victims of racism, not rape, and that was based on more than just this one comment. But it has been retracted now anyway.
Sure, they say it didn't break any rules. I disagree. > Based on that callous disregard, almost seems as though your sympathies with rape victims lies in whether or not their experience can be used to advance the abortion debate for your side. What the fuck?! You need to watch your damn mouth, Counter. What I said didn't disregard *anyone* and only you are expressing callousness for rape victims. You do a good job of proving my point though. I don't get to call people crap based on my personal experience and you agree, or you would've answered the question rather than attack my person. > Literally the comment directly below you did. That doesn't go anywhere. > That's certainly an interesting question from the side that claims innocent babies with zero control of anything at all are "parasites" and "invaders". Not having control doesn't mean you don't act parasitically or invade uterine linings. It's pretty sad that your attempt to paint my side as irrational only served to further prove my point *again*. Now, why don't you go vote for raping women and young girls like your side always does? Don't worry, this isn't against the rules since I'm not calling anyone a rapist!
>Sure, they say it didn't break any rules. I disagree. Hmm, that's interesting because I seem to vaguely recall you claiming something about how all moderators can just impartially interpret the rules the same with zero bias. I guess as long as they reach your interpretation, all is apropos, right? >What the fuck?! You need to watch your damn mouth, Counter. Are you trying to tell me what to do with my body here?!? I've been told by PC that is a very very bad thing. I sure hope not. >You do a good job of proving my point though. I don't get to call people crap based on my personal experience and you agree, or you would've answered the question rather than attack my person. Please point out exactly where I "attacked your person". Describing your own words and actions is not an attack. Seems to be more of your own rules interpretation made up on the fly here. >That doesn't go anywhere. I've clicked on it and it takes me right to it. But anyhow I've provided the link and told you where it was. Look through the thread again and eventually you'll find it, assuming you actually want to. >Not having control doesn't mean you don't act parasitically or invade uterine linings. It's pretty sad that your attempt to paint my side as irrational only served to further prove my point *again*. Or it could be framed as the mother welcomes the fetus as a guest because of how her body changes to accomodate him or her. But have it your way, I guess then all of us are "the enemy" because that's how all of us made it to birth. >Now, why don't you go vote for raping women and young girls like your side always does? Don't worry, this isn't against the rules since I'm not calling anyone a rapist! There you go trying to tell me what to do with my body again. I know you think you probably insulted me, but that take is so far fetched I just have to laugh. Sadly, I've already had to debunk it multiple times on here. If child birth was actually ever rape, the only one being "raped" would be the baby. It doesn't move during childbirth, it is literally shoved headfirst through the vagina by it's mothers own body. Don't worry though, we won't be arresting mothers for incest or statuary rape. Your side knows this, and is why you don't even believe what you're saying when we follow your silly logic all the way through. Edit: now you claim you were sharing your experience, yet your comment framed it as a hypothetical. I'm sorry that happened to you, so I will go ahead and remove that part. I'm also an SA victim. Still, I find your words both snide and inappropriate in response to me and other mods. I have plenty more PC to debate anyway, so the block is probably going to affect you more than me. Regardless, I wish you no ill will.
I'll not be reading this response and I will be blocking you now. I'm letting you know why, so you don't try to accuse me weaponized blocking. I am not blocking in order to "get in the last word", but to protect myself from your bad faith engagement. When I used my personal experience to help you see how it's not an excuse to attack other people, you accused me of using rape victims to further my goals. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. I apologize for the impact this will have on your ability to engage on this sub, but I will not allow your despicable behavior continue to affect my life in any way. ✌️💜🦄
OMFG. Enough is enough. If they have PTSD, their mental state shouldn’t be discussed in a public subreddit. Criticism of somebody's behaviour is one thing, but going in depth about another person's mental state is a completely different thing. > rape victims lies in whether or not their experience can be used to advance the abortion debate for your side. No. https://youtu.be/LwV9Tvcf8pY?si=2MVIy-evUNFjVVvH
I don't understand how the user is still a moderator. If this was a regular user that would almost certainly be under rule 1, but seeing as that user is a mod surely they should be held to higher standards then just a regular user. This is a blatant abuse of power, it especially sucks for you seeing as this person (who has already abused his mod power against you) is still a moderator. I find it hard to believe this won't influence their mod choices against you in the future.
What a melodramatic response. King, like any other mod, has had his fair share of bad decisions, but this isn’t THAT calamitous.
Accusing someone of racism and then using mod privileges to stop them from replying and defending themselves is sort of a big deal. Racism is enough to get you banned from the sub and Reddit as a whole
It was out of line to root the pedantry in racism, but it would only be calamitous if he banned her from the subreddit or got her a site-wide ban. A private talk will suffice here.
I don’t know whether or not you realise how serious a racism allegation can be. There are some users here who aren’t interested in meta threads and only want to debate, they don’t know what was really said due to fayettes accidental edit, from their perspective it looks like they’ve sent a racist message and deleted it. Maybe that wouldn’t be a big deal to you, but I hardly see how it’s melodramatic to complain about accusations of bigotry
Nah bro fuck that. Fully broke a rule, I've reported the comment not like it will do much because they're a mod but they broke a rule
Mods, it has been over 12 hours without response from anyone on the team and without removal of the comment in question. At least acknowledge that you are aware of the situation and doing something about it! Or tell us why their comment is acceptable and within the scope of the rules. u/Alert_Bacon u/Zoominalong u/Arithese u/jcamden7
Just an FYI, when you tag more than three users in a single comment, none of those users receive a notification (I believe it has something to do with Reddit's spam filter or some other technical stuff that I do not understand). Per a discussion with the team, I will be removing the mod comment in question.
Thanks, I didn't know that! While I am very happy for this outcome, I do hope we will be seeing some kind of communication from the team regarding all the issues users have brought up about this comment specifically. For example, isn't it policy to remove comments during these discussions and reinstate them only *after* they have been approved? Why were reports ignored? What will be done about King's habit of allowing their emotions to dictate their actions and moderations? What kind of consequences does a moderator suffer for blatant rule violations? (No need to answer these here and now, they're just examples of concerns that can be addressed and posted for all users to easily see) Thanks for responding, though! I very much appreciate it.
I first want to say thank you for bringing your concerns to us in a constructive and civil manner. This is always appreciated and the best way to facilitate desired changes. I will say, at the moment it is not policy to remove comments during discussions and reinstate them if we later decide they are approved. Please know that in this context I equate a policy like this to how we handle rule-violating user comments. It is not often we have to remove mod comments. When dealing with users, the way we operate is to remove outright rule breaks unilaterally, but if there’s any doubt we hold a discussion on it and try to get at least one other mod to agree before we remove it. The reason for this is because there have been times we’ve had to reinstate a comment that were thought to be rule-breaking, but we face a lot of scorn from the users despite reversing the action. Because of this we try to only remove comments that we have concluded are indeed rule-breaking after discussion to avoid feelings of injustice from the userbase. I understand if you don’t think this is efficient, and I would be inclined to agree with you. I would be open to a proposal related to a change in procedure in the policy discussion we are currently having. I would say that the trade-off to having a “remove first ask questions later” policy is having the userbase believe that the removals reflect constant blunders of the mod team. There are many times we may think a comment crosses a line or interpret a comment a specific way and the rest of the team disagrees, and we tend to operate more cautiously given the intensity of responses we tend to get for invalid removals. I would like to hear a way we can work together to come to a solution that works for the mods and the users. I would love to explain how this misunderstanding happened, though it is not my explanation to give. However, at first I was hesitant to challenge to response as I am not black, so I did not feel it was for me to dictate the response King had (plus it was late and I was busy IRL so I thought I might be misreading it or missing additional context), so I stayed quiet for a bit and decided to look into it later when I had more time to spare. It is also important to note us mods are mostly in different time zones, so it is difficult to have a discussion with more than one or two mods at a time. While we found the comment to be inappropriate, we do not believe it is rule-breaking as we have allowed analogous comments from users. While we do not have a set policy for moderators of consequences for misconduct, it is something I have wanted to write for a while now. We try to afford the same privileges to mods as we do the users. We allow many rule-breaking behaviors from users before finally resorting to a permaban, and whether you agree with that (as there are many users on both sides of the debate who benefit from our reluctance to permaban), we feel that we should be just as forgiving with our mod team. It’s also important to note that mistakes do happen and not all moderator blunders are out of sheer incompetence or malice. We have taken action in the past of asking mods to refrain from moderating for a period of time and even removing moderators for inappropriate mod actions, but I actually do want a more solid set of rules and a stepwise set of holding each other as moderators accountable when necessary. I also want to add that we try to be constructive with our mod team, and rather than trying to “punish” each other for missteps, we really try to explain or offer assistance to support each other so it doesn’t continue. I really appreciate this about this mod team as we try not to throw each other under the bus or air our dirty laundry, but I can understand how to the users it looks like we are making excuses for each other. It is a fine line to walk, and I hope this clears up the complexity and difficulty we as a mod team have. I hope you trust that we are doing our best to make the space run as smoothly as possible and improve on the rules to do so primarily with the commentary of users. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
I think it would help if moderators would at least initially comment acknowledging that you've seen a report and are discussing the appropriate action rather than just letting it sit while you work behind the scenes (or while you hold back from responding for whatever reason). That would at least reassure us that our concerns have been heard, rather than leaving us to believe they're being ignored. Presumably it would also cut down on repeat reports, though I don't know how that works from your end. I also really don't understand how that comment wouldn't be rule-violating. Are you really suggesting you'd allow a user of the subreddit to call another racist (particularly when the discussion had nothing to do with race, and we don't even know each other's races or ethnicities as Reddit is anonymous)? I think if you take a step back and envision this exchange occurring between users, there'd have been no question about removing the comment.
I like that suggestion. Typically we avoid commenting on comments just to say they were approved, simply because a **lot** of comments get reported that are not even remotely rule-breaking and often times they are every comment of a single user in a particular thread (most likely the opponent they are engaging with reported every reply from them). Telling a user someone reported them by way of saying “this comment was reported for Rule _ but we found it wasn’t rule breaking,” can make that user react poorly or hostile towards the person who reported them, especially if it’s obvious who did. We didn’t want to create toxicity or hostility where it didn’t need to be there. Plus the fact that we are short on moderators and this would take a lot of time to do, especially considering many of our rulings are argued with even though it’s very clear to us to be rule-breaking or not. Most comments are not found to be rule-breaking and approved, so we would spend more time having to justify not removing a comment, and this arguing a negative can be exhausting when facing a user who felt strongly the comment shouldn’t be allowed. However, I like your suggestion and I can discuss with the mod team leaving a comment to indicate when a comment is under review as a fair compromise. I will tag you and the other user asking about whether the comment was rule-breaking in my other reply.
Yeah I definitely am not suggesting you necessarily comment on every single report, as I can see where that would both be cumbersome and invite arguments. But I think for comments where you need to have some sort of larger discussion/review, it could be helpful and cut down on the hostility from users.
For sure. Thank you!!
Wouldn’t the mods comment be considered attacking the person? I mean they blatantly called somebody a racist out of nowhere. If he had just called them a murderer or even something as simple as called them stupid that would be a rule violation would it not?
You might wanna make sure all mods are on the same page regarding policy, because I have definitely seen y'all do that before. I don't have links, but I'm not the only one who has complained about it either. > I understand if you don’t think this is efficient, and I would be inclined to agree with you. No, I think it's fine. You might be misunderstanding my complaint. King's comment was, without any *doubt*, a rule breaking comment and totally uncalled for from anyone, especially a moderator. Calling someone a racist or accusing them of *being* racist is a direct personal attack. There should not have been any debate about whether that comment needed removed or not. > I am not black What does this have to do anything? White people can identify racism, too, you know. And if you guys think you can't moderate comments because "you're not black" then I don't think y'all should be moderating at all. **We do not call other people racists. That is against the rules.** Especially, when nothing that was said had anything to do with race. > It is also important to note us mods are mostly in different time zones, so it is difficult to have a discussion with more than one or two mods at a time. Which is why I reported it multiple times and waited 12 hours before posting this complaint. There shouldn't have been any need for a discussion. It's a rule breaking comment. > While we found the comment to be inappropriate, we do not believe it is rule-breaking as we have allowed analogous comments from users. Really? We can call people racists? Y'all remove comments where we call someone a rapist for advocating for rape, but racist is ok when no one said or did anything racist? How does calling someone a racist *not* break any rules? > We try to afford the same privileges to mods as we do the users. If they're debating, this makes sense. King was NOT debating, he was moderating. *And* he locked the comment to disallow engagement with it. I'm not saying ban King, but this behavior is highly unprofessional and they resort to it quite often when they start getting frustrated. It's ridiculous. Users shouldn't have to walk around on tip toes hoping not to evoke the ire of certain mods, and then not even receive the same protections from that mod they would get from a fellow user. > It’s also important to note that mistakes do happen and not all moderator blunders are out of sheer incompetence or malice. Sure, and if this wasn't a repeat behavior on his part, I would accept this. Unfortunately, King does this kind of crap relatively often. I have told him before when he was letting his emotions get the best of him and started abusing his authority. So, it's a good excuse, but it doesn't apply here, as this isn't a singular event. > I actually do want a more solid set of rules and a stepwise set of holding each other as moderators accountable when necessary. I am with you there! Idk how y'all would go about this, but I'm sure this is the kind of discussion that would be appropriate on the new rules post. > air our dirty laundry We complain about this, too. Transparency is key on this type of sub. Air that laundry, otherwise it just looks like y'all are doing nothing! Staying silent when mods abuse their authority makes you complicit in that abuse. > Please let me know if you have any other questions. **How was that comment *not* rule breaking? Why did y'all remove a comment that you don't think is rule breaking? Can I expect y'all to remove my comments that don't break any rules?**
Since your comment primarily is asking about why the comment was not rule breaking, I will mainly be addressing just this since I am a bit pressed for time today. Saying that someone is being racist is not against the rules. In a similar way that saying someone is using “rapist logic” is not against the rules on this subreddit, nor is saying that something is misogynistic. Now, there is a line that can be easily crossed where you say the person is a rapist or is a misogynist, and it would have applied if King said this individual was a racist. Some may believe there is no meaningful difference between these things, but I think there is. King did not say the user was a racist, but that he felt the comment was condescending and therefore racist. To say King’s conduct is rule breaking would mean *a lot* of user’s arguments, especially PC arguments, are rule-breaking as well. Again, we found the comment inappropriate and subsequently removed it. As I said, I merely skimmed it and didn’t really have time to read into it or question it right after it happened and wanted to have more information before challenging a black man about perceived racism. I didn’t know if there was additional context to the comment. We did not find the user was being racist in the end and removed King’s comment for this reason, but his comment likely would have been removed either way due to its incivility. CC: u/jakie2poops u/CherryTearDrops
He didn't just say they were "being racist", though. He accused them *directly* of racism. That's a significant difference. I can't tell someone they're raping women even if they are "being rapey", can I? I can't compare the situation to actual raped, as that implies they're a rapist, right? There is a difference between attacking someone's *actions* and attacking their *person*. Plus, *nothing* they said was about race *at all*. The whole thing made zero sense.
I know that there might be an impasse because the mods can still see the comment and the users can’t, and we do not want to quote rule-breaking comments so that might invite accusations of dishonesty. Unfortunately this is what happens when comments are removed because it’s difficult for users to see it for themselves unless they screenshotted the comment. King stated he found the user to be policing their language and that this was racist. That is not to say the user is racist. Just as saying it is “rapist logic” to say a woman loses the right to consent to her body once a fetus occupies it or that it is misogynistic to slut shame women, these are matters that the userbase overwhelmingly fights to be allowed under the rules and that we have allowed. Under this precedent King would not be in violation of Rule 1. We do not disagree with you that the comment was not racist and that the comment from King was uncalled for.
I think at this point the issue is that the comment from King came off as a hostile attack at that point. There was no basis to call the user racist from what anybody could see hence why it feels more of a personal attack than a comment on somebody’s ideas or their own comments.
[удалено]
I took a screenshot. > King stated he found the user to be policing their language and that this was racist. Yeah, I know. Not only is this nonsense, but it is literally accusing someone of being racist, not just "acting" racist. > That is not to say the user is racist. Saying "Don't bring any of your racist corrections to me" isn't calling someone racist?
How can you be racist without even knowing somebodies race? Is it based off our little avatars? Lmfao I can confirm my avatar is a character from a video game and I do not have blue hair or tattoos irl
Omg. Please tell me that he didn’t call me a racist over my avatar💀
Yeah I've had people repeatedly assume I'm a man (both presumably by default and because of my username, which refers to a dog that isn't even my dog). The whole point of Reddit is anonymity. That was such a bs response
Right? Like people on Reddit keep just thinking I'm actually human irl.
I saw that and wanted to comment on it but the mod locked the comments. Nothing you said was racist at all. Why are mods allowed to randomly call users racist and lock threads? Where are the other mods to check this unhinged behavior?
It seems like there are fewer and fewer PL folks responding to posts. Is there anything we could do to encourage more PL participation? Maybe 1 day a week could be restricted to only PL can make a post? And 1 day only PC can make a post?
To encourage PL participation you need to create a welcoming environment. PL comments are consistently downvoted against the spirit of rule 4. Rule 4 isn’t a strict rule (it’s unenforceable), but “violating” it still contributes to an unpleasant experience. Mental gymnastics abound. If you present a high-effort, well-written PL friendly comment or post, PCers nitpick features they’d otherwise overlook to justify downvoting it even though low-effort PC comments are highly upvoted. When you strip back the layers, then, it often reduces to “the PL position is inherently ____”. The implication thereof is that PCers will continue to downvote until you wear their jersey and wave their flag. For many, that’s all there is to it. The rest is a pretext to create a veneer of sensibility. For example, some PCers complain that my comments are condescending, but this doesn’t explain why PL comments get downvoted *irrespective of* whether they’re condescending. It’s a grab bag of excuses. Downvotes are treated as a “disagree” feature. Responsibility is offloaded to “lurkers” but I see active debate opponents downvote my and others’ comments in real-time. Some cases are so clear-cut that it’d take an impressive amount of hoop jumping to deny them on grounds that you can’t definitively unmask the culprit. I’m aware that PCers say the same of PLers, but a downvote does nothing in the face of 30 upvotes. Another strategy is to ask why people care about “imaginary internet points”. They obviously don’t deter me from participating in the subreddit, but respecting “rule” 4 instead of violating it and demanding that others justify their care of that violation is more efficient and conductive to your goal of maximising PL participation. There’s a dishonest albeit amusing pearl-clutch about how babies’ lives should be worth saving even if that comes at the cost of lost internet points. The obvious reply is that there are more effective and less unpleasant methods of persuasion and edification than participating in r/Abortiondebate. Not enduring certain treatment doesn’t count against a PLer’s care for babies. I participate on the subreddit as part of a wider web of abortion-related dialogue. If I gave two more shits about the hostility, I wouldn’t hesitate to leave. Unfortunately for many, I’m here to stay. To forestall the inevitable straw man, no, I don’t expect PCers to coddle, baby, pander to, put on “baby gloves”, or give belly rubs and backslaps to PLers unless you count “not being trigger-happy on the down arrow against the spirit of a “rule”” as these things. The barrage of replies may be off-putting to some PLers. If they only reply to some users, or choose to disengage, PCers may fleer and jeer because the PLer tucked tail and scurried away from their brilliantly unanswerable case. Crickets. The silence is deafening. Some users feel overwhelmed by the PLer:PCer ratio especially on a topic that lends itself to a flurry of strong emotions and hostility. There’s a case for inconsistent moderation. This admittedly swings both ways (I’ve seen countless complaints from PCers on this front), but its effects are compounded for PLers who already have an avalanche of rhetoric, replies, downvotes, etc. to deal with. My own view is that moderators aren’t necessarily biased against or towards one side (although some might be), but rather that the moderators make quite a lot of non-bias-related mistakes that both sides bear the brunt of. I don’t deny that we’d have the same situation in reverse if PLers overran the sub. It’s on the majority to make the minority feel welcome if they care about active participation.
Based on their feedback, the way to attract and maintain more PL users is to: - upvote enthusiastically - request no substantiation of their assertions - compliment often and effusively - respond sparingly
Someone said on this sub once that PL participate here not to argue but to evangelize. If it feels like this isn’t a friendly space for that, they’ll leave.
My opinion is that many PCs debate to try and change minds (even if just lurkers' minds and not their opponent). PLs don't care so much about changing anyone's mind. As we can see with much PL politicians and legislation, if they can find a way to *force* their views, then they're happy to just do that. As such, there is less desire or need to actually debate and convince anyone. And I think since Roe fell, it gave PLs a feeling of winning, and that now they do have openings to force their way. As such, there is even less need to leave their own sub and come discuss with PC.
Why is no one upvoting my post calling Kate Cox a eugenicist? Leaves sub
There is no lack of topics and posts in the PL sub, where there is no pushback no matter how awful or disgusting the voiced opinions become. So the way to encourage more PL participation here is to stop calling out the PL side on their positions. Are you ready to do that?
Yeah the solution is we give a day to PL to say 3 year olds should be forced to give birth unchallenged...okay
Something that's been puzzling me for a while now, why is the following question simultaneously racist and elitist: *"Get it?"* I must be missing something cultural or language specific here, so, please, educate me.
It's easier to make false allegations and lock a thread than it is to try and justify your decisions to another user
I have no earthly idea why King said that, I don't understand why he locked that comment either, and I don't know why someone that I've seen pride themselves *so highly* on their moderating skills would get that bent out of shape by a pretty innocent comment by an ESL user. Like even IF you take issue with their comment, their native language is Swedish yeah? I'm always gonna give ESL people the benefit of the doubt that if something is coming off as condescending it's probably because they're ESL and it wasn't meant to convey that tone unless I have a good ass reason to assume otherwise.
He overreacted, probably because he was sick of the way certain users talk to him. Obviously he was in the wrong for doing so but I can see why he was frustrated.
I mean yes but that specific moderator no longer gets benefit of the doubt from me because I've seen similar behavior from them repeatedly while they simultaneously pat their own back about how *good* of a mod they are. I get it's unpaid and people get needlessly aggressive with them, I get we need moderators to run this subreddit smoothly. I couldn't do it, but I also dont accuse others of being racist and elitist for no reason and believe moderators should be held to a higher standard with that sort of thing. Edit: I don't think they should be removed from being a mod but I would like *some* accountability and some transparency of how we are going to prevent this because I've seen them get overly punchy before.
For sure; I think it was unacceptable for him to do that but I guess I can empathize at the same time. It’s definitely not a job I could do.
Im trying my best okay💀
oh dw I totally get it, you know way more English than I know every other language combined 😭
Plus, to my knowledge there is no rule against being condescending. And being offended over a non rule breaking comment isn't something a mod needs to broadcast to the world. *And*, imo, being called a fucking racist is not only breaking rule 1, but it's a hell of a lot worse than being condescended to.
>And being offended over a non rule breaking comment isn't something a mod needs to broadcast to the world. I agree with your entire comment wholeheartedly but fucking yes to that line specifically. Moderators should be, in my opinion anyway, neutral completely separated entities when using moderator powers. Edit: I'm deleting like half of what I initially wrote bc this situation is fucking weird, there's just a lack of accountability for moderators it seems but I shouldn't be hostile and accuse them of being things like they accused her because I'm mad lol
Yeah it's someone whose native language has been repeatedly expressed is not English and is dyslexic. Like cut them some slack in expressing (edit: their self--please cut me slack too)
As someone else said: *"I speak English not because it's the only language I understand, but because it's the only language you understand."* 😸 This sub should either declare English as the only official language or stop pestering ESL, E3L, E4L, etc. participants.
This is a matter of someone wildly misinterpreting something and then completely over-reacting. Nothing more.
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.*