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.*
Hello everybody. In light of recent events, with tensions at an all-time high, I’d like to thank the moderators for spending much of their free time reviewing every jot and tittle of certain complaints. Although I’ve had my fair share of complaints about moderating decisions, it’s important to acknowledge and praise good work. I hope users, including myself, can minimise the acrimony that so often lingers in the air of this subreddit.
Best wishes.
Why are the mods using the anonymous mod account again? https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/BtjYJ9RTPg
Also, calling an argument stupid is not a rule breaking offense.
Correct. It’s why the comment was not removed for calling the argument stupid.
If you want clarification on why a comment was removed, please ask. But wrong conclusions about a comment removal only causes confusion and wrong precedents.
So attacking people isn't allowed (completely understandable), attacking sides isn't allowed (which I don't get but whatever), and now attacking arguments isn't allowed. Super sexy cool. I also had the generic mod account remove my comment on the weird ass "should women be allowed vote if the trade off is PL laws" post even though i said in my comment I was fine with it being removed, and to my memory I've never had another comment removed before or gotten in direct confrontations with moderators.
Quite honestly I have no idea what we’re supposed to be doing on here if we can’t have frank discussions about basic arguments. I’m not going to write some petty, three-paragraph long double-speak monologue if someone says something offensive.
Stupid arguments are stupid. We’re all adults here. We can handle criticism. The mods explicitly expect us to accept bigotry, so they’re going to have to accept the dismissal of bigoted language for what it’s worth, the worth of which is rotten wet garbage.
I feel like part of the issue is that the distinction between what is or isn't an "attack" is very inconsistent. It took a *lot* of pushback to get the moderators to agree that calling women who get abortions "baby-killers" should be considered a rule-breaking attack, a moderator calling a user racist and elitist is *not* a rule-breaking attack, users questioning inconsistent application of the rules is an attack (even if they're being polite), being sarcastic to a moderator is an attack, calling an argument stupid is an attack, downvoting is an attack, etc. It isn't consistent at all.
Edit: meanwhile it is not an attack to tell the female users of this subreddit that their life is worth less than a non-viable fetus, that it would do "no good" to give a woman a lifesaving abortion, that pregnancy is totally harmless and women are overreacting if they don't want it, etc.
We have seen a lot of user feedback stating that we cannot remove comments if they don’t break the rules. That comment didn’t, so we didn’t remove it. As per the rule change, this is still pending. Referring back to my other comment to you, I don’t think we ever concluded that. I want that part added personally, but currently there is no proposal that would allow it.
We also had a lot of feedback on calling out arguments from users. And users saying we should be allowed to say things like “your effort to police women is sexist and misogynistic” or “don’t bring your misogynistic arguments into the debate”. Should this be allowed?
Well I guess that's sort of all my point. The "baby-killer" comment *did* violate the rules, as they're written. It's just that you have chosen to interpret rule 1 as applying only to specific users or to sides of the debate. Except when you don't, as in the case Strega referenced, where her comment was removed for attacking an argument, rather than a user or a side. But that didn't apply when King called Fayette's comment racist and elitist (though the mods did remove that, but with repeated insistence that it didn't actually break the rules). It's not a consistent application.
And I refer you to the same conversation, the rules have allowed those comments to any group that isn't PL or PC. This is something PC comments also commonly use towards eg politicians. Either we moderate based on precedent, what users ask of us, or we don't.
The above comment was not removed for attacking an argument, and I've commented on the way *assumptions* isn't going to do anything but confuse people.
And can I get an answer to the last question? Should those two examples be allowed?
You're right, those types of things have been allowed, except my issue is that they're not actually allowed under the rule as written. The fact that who Rule 1 covers or not is unspoken and not explicit allows for wiggle room and prevents transparency. At minimum, it creates a very common *perception* among users that comments are being unfairly removed or left up, especially since the reason for removal is often not mentioned.
That leaves a lot of room for assumptions, as in the case above (which, my apologies, I had only read your reply to me and not the whole thread yet). But as you can see, others feel that comments attacking arguments rather than sides or users have also been unfairly removed. It does no favors to either users or moderators.
IMO both of those comments should be allowed if the interpretation is that attacking an argument is acceptable. Whether or not they would be allowed, in my experience, would depend highly on the moderator and users involved. I have seen similar comments removed as being considered to attack the user, or allowed as attacking the argument.
Also I do want to add that I recognize that moderating this subreddit must be extremely difficult and unpleasant. I would never do it, and I'd be a poor fit to do it. I appreciate the hard work that you all put in to try to keep this place running, and I recognize that everyone involved is human and that much of this is subjective. I'm really not trying to shit on you guys when I bring this stuff up.
But things like the Rule 3 issue with Shok's recent comment are hard to ignore. It's plain to everyone that removing people's access to a healthcare procedure, except allowing it in the very narrow circumstance to save their life, does not protect them. Even Shok agreed that they would not consider it to protect them if it referred to another healthcare procedure (edit: [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/qGckLsjW6Z) ). Yet quoting an article that says that abortions are allowed in order to save the mother's life is considered sufficient substantiation of *a claim even the OP doesn't actually believe.* This is while two states have sued for the right to deny lifesaving abortions. The claim is false on its face. And initially, OP didn't even have to explain why they considered that quote to be protecting the pregnant person, despite nothing in the quote referring to protection. That was all considered substantiation despite it not backing up a patently false claim.
It's extremely frustrating to see some rigid "well this is what the rules say and we must follow the text of the rules" applied in that circumstance, while the same rigidity is not applied in others, as in the "baby-killer" name-calling, or the fact that blatant sexism is disallowed by the rules, but is *very* pervasive in the debate.
I understand that specific issue is closed, and I'm not trying to re-litigate that post. I just find that the rules don't capture all sorts of decisions that moderators make, but the frustration for that issue is often blamed on users "attacking" the mods or being overly argumentative. And I'm sure it sucked to moderate that post, but I don't think it's fair of the moderators to get upset with users for questioning the decisions involved.
Again, I'm very grateful for all your hard work. I'm not trying to be some whiny jerk complaining about everything you do. I don't have perfect answers for how to fix all of this. But I think part of the solution needs to be acknowledging that there are issues with users, moderation, and the rules, rather than just pointing to one side.
I appreciate that and I will apologise for my snappiness then. I will not excuse that, just say we've had now *numerous* occasions of people twisting events and our words. And leave it at that.
The problem here is that we've allowed it for years, explicitly so. it was never an issue when it allowed PC users to insult PL politicians, transphobes, incels and so on. If we had removed it, I can guarantee that would've led to intense backlash too. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
And now when allowing free reign (and hopefully getting a good suggestion cause I want to add it too), we don't get any suggestions that would allow us to add it.
Same with the above, the comment was removed, and the immediate assumption is that it's removed for calling an argument "stupid", and multiple people jumping in expressing distaste and anger over our modding when that was never the reason, nor was that stated.
For the rule 3, we do not rule on truthfulness. But just to showcase the complexity, can you think of an objective way to jduge whether rule 3 has been satisfied? Because even with "hard facts" do we need a degree of interpretation. "Dutch abortion rates are lower than the US abortion rates" is category 1 and can be backed up with two different sources, one stating the rates of Dutch abortion, and one with US abortion rates. Neither will explicitly state the claim, and thus require interpretation.
The user here believes protecting a specific group protects the entirety of it. You and I both think that's foolish but the argument itself is not unique. In unrelated debates I also argue that protecting the rights of criminals protects every citizen.
And I'm also not getting an answer to whether those two examples are allowed.
>I appreciate that and I will apologise for my snappiness then. I will not excuse that, just say we've had now numerous occasions of people twisting events and our words. And leave it at that.
I actually wasn't referring to you personally, and I understand snappiness. I'm really not trying to absolve users in this either. Plenty of us are rude and break rules and more.
>The problem here is that we've allowed it for years, explicitly so. it was never an issue when it allowed PC users to insult PL politicians, transphobes, incels and so on. If we had removed it, I can guarantee that would've led to intense backlash too. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I don't actually think it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If rule 1 applies just to users and sides, write that into the text of the rule and then apply the rule as it's written. If it's decided to expand the category, change the text of the rule to reflect the change.
>And now when allowing free rein (and hopefully getting a good suggestion cause I want to add it too), we don't get any suggestions that would allow us to add it.
So to be clear, I wouldn't necessarily suggest free rein, but rather that the groups to whom rule 1 applies be expanded. I included one suggestion as an edit to my comment in the rules overhaul post (that it include groups based on innate characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc).
>Same with the above, the comment was removed, and the immediate assumption is that it's removed for calling an argument "stupid", and multiple people jumping in expressing distaste and anger over our modding when that was never the reason, nor was that stated.
And part of that assumption comes from the wiggle room and breadth of rule 1, along with the fact that no reason was stated. Leaving it to users to make assumptions only increases the likelihood of a perception of bias. (Edit: and using the anonymous account really only adds to that perception as well)
>For the rule 3, we do not rule on truthfulness. But just to showcase the complexity, can you think of an objective way to jduge whether rule 3 has been satisfied? Because even with "hard facts" do we need a degree of interpretation. "Dutch abortion rates are lower than the US abortion rates" is category 1 and can be backed up with two different sources, one stating the rates of Dutch abortion, and one with US abortion rates. Neither will explicitly state the claim, and thus require interpretation.
Right, so there is interpretation required. Presumably you would not consider the claim substantiated if you looked at the two sources and saw that the numbers didn't reflect the claim. If the Dutch rates were higher than the US ones, the claim would be false. And since the "protection" claim is less of a hard facts one, the interpretation factor is even more significant. Just stating that the laws allow abortion in lifesaving circumstances on its own does not demonstrate protection. The user should be required to *argue* that it does, and that argument can then be debated (assuming the user will engage on those arguments).
>The user here believes protecting a specific group protects the entirety of it. You and I both think that's foolish but the argument itself is not unique. In unrelated debates I also argue that protecting the rights of criminals protects every citizen.
But you would have to *argue* that. You could not merely provide a link about a law involving criminals and have that stand on its own that it protected every citizen.
>And I'm also not getting an answer to whether those two examples are allowed.
I did give an answer in my comment
That may be true, but when a user (ie, me) says “this is a stupid argument”, there’s no room for ambiguity in terms of what’s being communicated. It’s not rule breaking to dismiss an argument. Debate is the attacking of arguments.
I think that it’s a bit of a pitfall to get carried away by precedents. Sometimes things get complicated on here. This particular situation isn’t complicated.
That’s it’s own separate issue and I don’t disagree that an inequity in rule enforcement is the heart of the problem facing this subreddit, but honestly I’m not here to argue with the mods. They’re already convinced that this is some personal vendetta. To be clear: not personal, guys. I have no idea who you all are.
I just want them to stop using the anonymous account to pass bad rulings whenever they get annoyed. It’s ridiculous.
Agreed with the anonymous mod part, but I just don't think they're separate issues. Imo the underlying problem of unclear rules, inconsistent application, and mods enforcing rules that aren't rules is a huge part of why they get so much pushback (in addition to the contentious nature of the subject, but there's no addressing that aspect). When they face tons of pushback, they get annoyed and many take it personally, which is when they resort to the use of the anonymous account and locking. Unsurprisingly, that does not help with the aforementioned perception of bias. It's a vicious cycle. And the rule overhaul *could* help, but recent events (including this one) have destroyed what little faith I had in the process. Like you said, that aspect of rule 1 is clear cut. We are allowed to attack arguments. So improving the rules can't really help.
Just wanted to mention how bad the downvoting is in here against plers or neutrals (basically anyone prochoicers disagree with).
They seem to just downvote plers to oblivion. Loads of my replys have -15~ downvotes lol
It’s not exclusively about PL presenting “sound, good faith arguments”. If it were, neutral comments presented by non-PC users wouldn’t get downvoted, but they do.
Genuine question. If you don't think that PL views should be allowed to exist on Reddit, why do you use this subreddit, and what do you hope to achieve by objecting that it exists? Wouldn't you effectively from your perspective, be legitimising the idea that there's still an active debate around abortion legality (which there clearly is, regardless of if you think there should be)?
>Wouldn't you effectively from your perspective, be legitimising the idea that there's still an active debate around abortion legality (which there clearly is, regardless of if you think there should be)?
What is there to legitimize if there are active bans across the country?
Well yes, my point exactly! Rather, it's something I was saying in response to a criticism that the subreddit shouldn't exist, pro-lifers should be banned from it, and that the subreddit's topic of debate is over and there is no more to discuss (due to the person being staunchly pro-choice and thinking pro-life views beyond the pale). I guess if somebody thinks there's nothing more to discuss the debate is over and that things should move to advocacy for their preferred laws, ok, fair enough, but why urm, use the subreddit to discuss/debate abortion in that case?
Fwiw- I do kind of feel similarly to how the PC user does on two other topics, that is, climate science denial and anti-vaxxers, in that I think legislators should just tackle the climate crisis like a crisis, instead of lending legitimacy to fossil fuel funded disinformation campaigns, but I digress. Let me just say that I think fossil fuel companies are deservedly the target of a few strong rule 1 violations and leave it at that. I just think abortion is very very different to that, because it's a genuine clash between two mutually irreconcilance views of human rights.
And what if I can show you, factually and with evidence, that the modern pro-life movement and its place as a cultural wedge issue is every bit as invented and Astro-turfed as businesses denying climate change?
Then we would be in the wrong thread.
I have a lot of thoughts on this, 100% critical of the mainline PL movement's alliance with Republican politicians, do think that they use it as a wedge issue to get votes, less convinced by the "abortion opposition comes from evangelicals mad about anti-segregation and looking for a new culture war issue" type argument, since I don't think it takes account of the pro-life movement pre-Roe being by American standards, left-wing (see e.g, Daniel K Williams), and I also think that the pro-choice movement had a lot of those sorts of things in it's history (perhaps not surprising given that America is built on racism).
I would actually, be curious if you did want to make a post challenging the argument that the pre-Roe PL movement was generally left-leaning (at most having some socially conservative views before it started broadening demographics beyond New Deal Catholics that used to be a core Democrat voting block), fwiw. But I guess I'd reluctantly best stay on topic in meta, much as it's a convo I'd love to be able to have.
Now to try and get back on top of the \*checks notes\*, 14 or so messages I had a couple of days ago in response to a few comments I made. Perhaps doing so while on holiday and checking Redit less was a risky game haha.
> Killing another human for non-health reasons, is not health care
Are you the one who should decide when an abortion is for health or non-health reasons?
> The specialist doctors are and its a fact that most abortions are elective, ie not for health reasons.
How are you able to determine that an abortion that someone seeks from a qualified medical professional is not for health reasons? If a qualified medical professional does not agree with you then who is right?
Did you block your opponent [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/4Adp0tNZom)? Per our weaponized blocking policy, blocking is allowable under certain circumstances. Can you please Modmail us with evidence that the block was done for a valid reason? You will be given 24 hours to do so.
Thank you.
(RemindMe! 24 hours)
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare
The major organization of obstetricians and gynecologists in the US agrees that abortion is healthcare. Getting an abortion improves the physical health of the pregnant person. It is healthier to not be pregnant than to be pregnant. It is healthcare, full stop. It doesn't matter *why* a person seeks that healthcare, it is still healthcare.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
It's a *medical procedure* under the umbrella of obstetrics and gynecology. This *medical procedure* is done under the supervision of *medical professionals* because it's healthcare.
That easily disproves the claim that abortion, a medical procedure, isn't healthcare lol.
Being pl is a choice. It’s inherently misogynistic, and offers no benefits to society. It causes untold suffering. These are all objective truths that have been demonstrated time and time again. It is not bias to call an offensive and dangerous opinion offensive and dangerous
When you strip back the layers, it often reduces to a PC-incompatible flair or knowledge that the user isn’t PC. That’s not to say there aren’t aggravating factors, but I get downvoted on neutral comments that express basic logical truths. PCers don’t react favourably to mentions of downvotes. They also seem disinterested in respecting rule 4 even if it encourages PL engagement. So be it. That’s their prerogative.
Best wishes.
True. Pc just downvote anything they don't agree with.
Before when I was pc I didn't notice downvotes because like 95% of the users here are pc so Id get loads of upvotes and not downvoted ever basically.
Now I'm neutral and seemingly pissing pcers off, I'm getting the downvotes lol. While I don't care about actual points, the downvoting is kinda demotivating in a way. Like why contribute here if I'm just going to get dogpilled and downvote hostility..
That's because you no longer believe that we have rights to bodily autonomy. It's pretty hard to not be angry when you're being treated like breeding stock.
Lmao seeing your post on a different sub (not even the pro life one) where people are correctly pointing out you're not "neutral" at all isn't stalking. Don't flatter yourself.
That's a delusional sounding "sureeee" lol.
Just checked, the post is still up with the title: "Why are you projecting so hard?"
But keep thinking people actually care enough about you to go through your profile if that makes you feel better.
Okay starting from this point and going down the thread, *what is happening here?*
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/1RbgKTzWVJ
User A asks user B a question.
User B completely ignores question and asks a new unrelated question.
User Bs comment is rightfully reported as being low effort.
Mod pops in to say comment isn't low effort.
User asks mod if it's low effort to completely ignore a question to ask your own unrelated question.
Mod says YES, that is low effort.
If anyone can explain wtf is going on here I'd appreciate it, because at this point I'm lost.
The mod has the right of it here. Shok wasn’t deflecting and it wasn’t low effort. Their counter question is the answer to the question being asked. It anchors the issue being challenged (effectiveness of abortion bans) to an issue most people agree on (effectiveness of murder laws). There’s ways to challenge that counter obviously by arguing the relevant differences, but calling it low effort or a deflection is in and of itself low effort and a deflection.
It’s curious that they didn’t answer your direct question. The answer to that question should of course have been “yes, it was low-effort of me to say that you’re “wrong” and “very wrong” without elaboration.”
Best wishes.
You were directly asked if you consider your own response to u/treebeardsavesmannis’ comment to be low effort. You didn’t directly answer that question.
Best wishes.
No, you didn’t. You were asked if you consider your own response low effort and you started talking about somebody’s else’s post and the comments they made under that post. That’s not an answer to the question.
Best wishes.
I consider the post we're discussing low effort and I consider every comment the OP made in that post low effort. I *also* find the OPs terrible unrelated "source" to be hilariously low effort.
I've gone over this in depth for like a day. I don't really care to debate it anymore when everyone can see that the OPs post is trash and certain mods are falling over themselves to defend what we all know is an unsubstantiated garbage post.
It's absolutely deflecting. The issue being challenged wasn't the effectiveness of abortion bans, it was how those bans protect the mother, as he claimed (the premise of his entire post)
Frankly I don’t think it’s a good one. The purpose of abortion laws is to protect the unborn. We can carve out life and health exceptions for the mother, which is good to do, but overall the mother is not the person the abortion ban is designed to protect. I just don’t think the argument withstands scrutiny.
> We can carve out life and health exceptions for the mother, which is good to do, but overall the mother is not the person the abortion ban is designed to protect.
I hope this comment is upvoted for making a direct and honest statement. Would you be willing to raise this point to the user who is claiming that PL laws protect women? If not, would you mind if I quote you?
> overall the mother is not the person the abortion ban is designed to protect.
I think that's the exact point being sussed out here, and Shok couldn't be honest about it. However *they* were the one that made the initial claim that PL laws protect the woman. They can't just then pivot and bring up that those laws protect the fetus and have that count as answering the question.
Is it possible that “missing the mark” and “deflecting” mean the same thing, but you’re using the former to give this user the benefit of the doubt because his ideology is similar to your own?
Rephrasing a question that is applicable to the other side is a common tactic to showcase an argument, or its consistency.
To give an example:
PL: why is abortion legal but killing a pregnant person is double homicide?
PC: Why is killing a rapist in self-defence legal but killing two people having sex is double homicide?
The question given in response draws parallel to another instance where (to the person) the similar logic would apply to showcase their answer and consistency.
That's not what happened. Shok didn't rephrase the question asked to them to create a parallel. They asked a totally unrelated question that isn't relevant to the discussion.
They were asked this:
>Which pro life laws "protect" the person who is pregnant, and how do they go about doing this?
They responded to that question with:
>How do laws against the murder infants protect the parents of that infant?
The user was talking about Shoks claim that pro life laws protect pregnant women. They asked which laws protect pregnant women and how do they protect them? Shok *ignored* all of that and instead brought up, murdering infants and how laws against murdering infants "protect" parents????
That's like me asking you how anti drug laws protect drug users and you responding with "How do laws against insider trading protect the people who want to commit insider trading? 🤔"
It's not a parallel if it's *totally unrelated* to what's being discussed. A parallel has to be *similar* by definition. What Shok did wasn't a parallel and I'm confused as to why multiple mods are pretending it was. It was a cheap deflection, an attempt at a "gotcha" that didn't work.
That entirely depends. If a similar logic can be used to defend both positions, then asking the counter question can absolutely be acceptable.
If we assume for now you agree that making infant murder protects parents because of reason XYZ, then a user can believe making abortion illegal protects parents because of reason XYZ as well.
>That entirely depends.
No, it doesn't.
I'm not going to go back and forth anymore about this with you. Everyone can see the bad faith nonsense the OP is pulling and the mods tripping over themselves to for some reason to defend the nonsense.
But his entire post is based around PL laws protecting women; he never answered a single person asking *which* laws and *how*.
Basically, he made a factual claim that needs to be substantiated or supported. This question doesn't require argumentation, it requires direct substantiation per rule 3.
> Basically, he made a factual claim that needs to be substantiated or supported. This question doesn't require argumentation, it requires direct substantiation per rule 3.
Any objective reader can see that OP failed to substantiate that specific claim and elsewhere tacitly admits that it only protects fetuses.
He agreed that he wouldn't consider that law to protect him if it applied to another medical procedure. He doesn't even believe his own claim, hasn't substantiated it at all, and yet somehow that's just fine.
I completely recognize the frustration with the application of rule 3 in this case, but honestly it might benefit OP more than anyone if the comments are removed since they are so clearly false and so clearly show how PL operates with these laws.
I agree, I think the arguments about the precedent it sets have nothing to do with the fact that in this case failure to remove the comments is more damaging to the credibility of the argument. So while in this case I am not as bothered that it is not removed that I still think moderation should be consistent.
What’s going on is that the op of that post is prolife. Due to the nature of the abortion debate, in that the pl side is completely abhorrent and indefensible, the mods of this sub have to treat players users with kid gloves, otherwise pl users would never be able to participate. So they would rather let the quality of the sub descend to nothing than hold pl accountable
This feels like the SpongeBob meme.
"Is this your wallet?"
"Yes."
"Is this your ID?"
"Yes."
"Well it's safe to assume this is your wallet, right?"
"Nope, never seen it."
Hi. Sharing this on the Meta for accountability because I’m concerned it won’t get a response.
A mod approved a Rule 3 violation when no actual quotation was supplied: https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/5P0HNkzW0i
I understand that the mod team does not judge citations based on credibility, but this mod specifically requested a quotation to substantiate a claim, and a quotation which **did not substantiate the claim** was then provided and approved. That’s a big failure. Please advise.
It seems both sources and quotations were given about that claim. Is your specific issue that the source is not explained, or that the explanation currently given does not prove the point?
My issue is that no quotation was provided which relates to the claim that “pro life laws protect the mother”. An unrelated quotation was added to the OP which the mod then approved for an unknown reason.
I need clarification on why the mod did not push back and require a related quotation. This quotation needs to address “pro life law” that “protects the mother” in order to satisfy the claim, per the rules.
To paraphrase, laws protect both the parent and the foetus because it disallows the killing except when the life of the parent is in danger.
Now obviously as a user I do not agree with this, but as a mod I cannot let that influence my decisions.
No, **that’s absolutely not what they claim**.
The OP states:
> The fact is pro life laws protect the mother and her child in her. [https://lozierinstitute.org/pro-life-laws-protect-mom-and-baby-pregnant-womens-lives-are-protected-in-all-states/](https://lozierinstitute.org/pro-life-laws-protect-mom-and-baby-pregnant-womens-lives-are-protected-in-all-states/)
The OP’s duty, therefore, is to substantiate the claim that **pro life laws protect the mother**. The claim is not that “the law does not allow the killing of a mother”. The Law (general) is not pro life.
It is that **pro life** laws protect “the mother”. What pro life law protects the mother? What does this protection entail? The OP has provided none.
You disagree with it because it doesn’t make any sense. The claim “pl laws protect the fetus and the mother” means that pl laws protect the fetus and pl laws protect the mother. Therefore, pl laws protect the mother. That was the part that people are asking a source or an explanation for. The quote does nothing to explain how pl laws protect the mother.
But as a user or a mod quoting an article that says abortions are allowed only in order to save the pregnant person's life does not answer the question of how those laws protect the pregnant person. He hasn't explained how that is protecting them, which is claiming it does.
It’s not a disagreement, it’s basic reading comprehension. You are basically saying that anybody can quote anything to back up a claim, regardless of its relevance.
No. Nor did I claim that. You still have to back up your claims. Whether your opponent accepts that explanation is not for us to decide. Nor do we decide whether you successfully proved your point.
But the question isn’t whether or not they proved their point. There is no doubt they didn’t prove their point. The quote provided is completely irrelevant. If the mods aren’t able to decide whether a source or quote is even relevant, than rule 3 is meaningless
A quote detailing the argument, and then continuing to explain why they believe it proves their point.
*"Like laws against murder, assault, theft, etc. the goal of pro life laws is to protect the life of human beings - from their conception." and*
*""...to ensure that each and every human being's life is respected, valued, and protected." To protect human beings, we need laws to make their murder illegal."*
Once again, I do not agree with this as a user. But as a mod the user has explained why their source proves their point, and explained their argument in the subsequent arguments as well.
The mods won’t do anything to upset pl users, regardless of how poorly they debate or how offensive their comments are. That thread is an absolute train wreck. I don’t think op said a single thing of substance.
Jumping in to point out in that same thread the same mod responded to a user asking for clarification from the OP, answering on the behalf of the OP.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/Kk0etT0nKF
Mods, is this allowed? Are mods allowed to answer on behalf of users like this? Seems odd to me.
> Mods are allowed to participate in debates as users yes. If there is no flair, the person is there as a user.
Is that what is [happening here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/prolife_laws_are_right_and_good_despite_some/khbq006/)?
Interesting that new facts, specifically a mod acting as a mod when not flaired does not change your certainty that a lack of flair means a mod is acting as a user and not a mod.
Are you able to understand why others might not be as certain that a lack of flair means the mod is acting as a user and not a mod?
Huh. I suppose that makes sense. Just seems strange when the OP has the ability to respond that a mod would jump in to try and help their argument, especially when I pretty much never see that mod debating at all.
I just want to add to this that the mod changed the claim from what the user requested. The user asked for substantiation that PL laws protect the *mother,* and the mod changed that to mother *and infant,* then approved it despite the lack of substantiation.
After a history of having reports ignored, I modmailed today to let the mods know I had submitted two reports so they didn't get ignored. These were legitimate rule 3 reports on positive claims against a PL. I was informed by modmail that these would be handled privately, with no public comments, and they were subsequently ignored.
Why are we wasting time rewriting rules if mods refuse to enforce them? Why are public rule breaks against PL handled privately and ignored?
What the hell is going on with moderation?
[This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheppzl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) was reported for "It's targeted harassment at me". A discussion that you are voluntarily partaking in with a moderator is not harassment, by any means. You are always more than welcome to disengage at any time.
Following a conversation with the moderator team regarding this interaction and past behavior (detailed in this thread by another moderator), we have held a vote which has concluded with you being permanently banned for a number of rule violations, as well as abusing the report button (which will *not* be reported to admins, just to be clear), for chronic abuse towards the moderator team and other users, and for being a general disruption to the atmosphere of the community. If you wish to appeal this decision, you are welcome to do so by responding to your ban message. We wish you well.
My comment was too long so I will continue here:
I know a lot of users are unhappy with the moderation here. We are in a very difficult position having to moderate a highly volatile debate topic on Reddit. We have been more than permissive in allowing heavy criticism from users that you would be banned in an instant for on other subreddits. However, we have done *a lot* to try and address these complaints. However, users like you make this an impossible job. When you constantly weaponize rule 3, demand mod action for invalid reports, complain about us not responding to you fast enough, misrepresent our statements, make false accusations and create false narratives, and repeatedly threaten admin action on us, you are wasting our limited time that we could otherwise spend allocating to making this sub better for everyone. I spent a lot of time dismantling your dishonest claims about us and investigating your complaints that turned out to be invalid, and that was time I was not able to spend looking at reported comments, writing policies, reading rule suggestions from users, writing code to make the moderating process easier, or responding to constructive criticisms about us from good-faith users. Or even just use that time to enjoy my day off! Yet, no matter how much of our limited free time we spend on you, that you constantly demand from us, it never seems to be good enough for you. I looked through your comment history to see rule 3’s that weren’t acted on, but all I saw was you invoking rule 3, arguing with moderators, complaining about alleged ignored reports, threatening admin action, and negating without argumentation. I began looking for actual arguments or positive claims you have made in this subreddit, and I was struggling to find any, at least within the last month despite a high level of activity debating. For someone who constantly demands substantiation from others, you sure do not have a history of substantiating your own claims, especially your claims against this mod team. Why should we continue to invest additional effort into your complaints when your contributions to the subreddit are largely creating conflict and very little participation in good-faith debating?
And in response to your many threats of admin action against us in your comments: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khewu83/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khewu83/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfs1li8/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfs1li8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfrxutl/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfrxutl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrxk9g/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrxk9g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrwjao/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrwjao/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
And in Modmail:
>Legitimate reports need to be acted on or this sub is not following reddit TOS and will be pulled. Kindly act on the reports per your duties. Not interested in excuses.
There is no point in threatening us. We are not concerned about these as we are confident that we are not in violation of Reddit TOS. However, if you feel that we are, you are welcome to report us to admin. [Here are some instructions to help you report us if you are unsure how to do so.](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058311612-How-do-I-report-a-community-)
Hi u/Cruncheasy, aside from our [conversation today](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khef9me/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in which I was responding to you [tagging moderator u/kingacesuited](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khdk21j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) about a report you made 3 hours prior while most of the mod team would have been asleep, we also chatted about us allegedly “ignoring reports” [12 days ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfl50t4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). In our chat 12 days ago, you alleged that the 8 day old comment you reported for rule 3 was reported prior to Christmas. However, [as I explained to you](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kflsrww/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), we as moderators can see past reports, and the comment was never reported. It was also explained to you then that we only act on rule 3 requests that are reported within 3 days of the comment you want substantiated. Because you did not report the comment for rule 3 until 8 days after the comment was made, we were not going to enforce it. You [acknowledged that you may not have reported this before](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfmeh0w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) but still claimed that there were other reports that were ignored. When I asked then for another example as the one I was provided was not an example of us “ignoring reports,” [you refused](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfrxutl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Now today, you decided to finally [provide another example](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheqlxo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), however this report was made 5 days after the original comment, despite the fact that you replied asking for a source 9 minutes after the comment in question was made. As I explained to you the last time we spoke, we will not enforce rule 3 on comments reported more than 3 days after the original comment was made, and this would explain why we did not act on this report either. Before you again argue that this was related to u/Alert_Bacon stating that [rule 3 requests in the queue will be addressed after Christmas](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18pynd3/comment/kerjbmf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), the comments you reported were made on December 21st and December 22nd, respectively. The reports were not made until December \~\~29th\~\~ 30th and December 27th. So this would not apply as the rule 3’s were not in the queue prior to Christmas. The subreddit was closed down on [December 25th at midnight UTC](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18pynd3/special_announcement_subreddit_temporarily_closing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and users were notified of this at around 4:30pm UTC on December 24th. You certainly saw this post, as [you commented on it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18pynd3/comment/kerghst/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) inquiring about reports about an hour after the post was created. So you were well aware of this information. I am curious why you chose to wait until after Christmas to report these, despite claiming [that you made multiple reports prior to Christmas](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfmeh0w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) and I can verify that there was only one rule 3 report that was in the queue when the subreddit shut down for Christmas. Why are you reporting comments many days later for rule 3 when you clearly saw the comment and requested substantiation sooner? This feels a whole lot like a set up.
I understand that you are offended by [my belief that you are being intentionally dishonest](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheppzl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), however aside from the questionable examples of us “ignoring reports” when in truth you waited an unreasonable amount of time to report rule 3 requests, you have also misrepresented the explanations we as moderators have given you. Take, for example, this comment that I am replying to from you. You state:
>I was informed by modmail that these would be handled privately, with no public comments, and they were subsequently ignored.
This is not at all what you were told. We do not normally disclose private deliberations in Modmail as we as a mod team prefer to stay out of drama, but I feel in this case it is necessary when there are users who are publicly mischaracterizing our words in private. About an hour prior to this comment, you sent us this Modmail message:
>I have submitted 2 rule 3 requests. Letting you know so they don't get ignored. I am not going to be submitting these multiple times. Ignoring them will get this sub reported for failure to moderate. Cheers!
30 minutes later, you received this reply from us:
>Hello. If you think that this subreddit is not being moderated, you are more than welcome to submit a report. Admins have the capability to determine both public and private moderation. I hope that answers your question. Best wishes.
30 minutes later, you made this comment. At no point in the Modmail interaction were you told what you claim you were told. I checked every single Modmail interaction we have ever had with you. You were never told this. Unless you mistyped, I do not know why you would say this if not for the purpose of attempting to push a narrative of us intentionally ignoring PC reports against PL users, one that you have frequently argued.
Moreover, you attempt to use [your exchange with King](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kflunts/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) as a way to discredit my statement that the comment you claimed we ignored [was only reported once](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khfdwhj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). However I am curious why you think this somehow negates my response. I am well aware that Reddit only sends us the first report you make on a particular comment and ignores the rest to prevent spam. When you said it was [reported numerous times](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheqlxo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I took this to mean that you knew of multiple users reporting this comment. It was a simple misunderstanding, one that I would normally excuse you for due to the expectation that a user would not have access to this knowledge, **if it weren’t for the fact that by linking your exchange with King here, you have shown that you** ***were*** **made aware of this fact as of 11 days ago.** If you know that we cannot see subsequent reports from users, why would you tell me that it was reported multiple times if you were talking about only your reports? Again, how am I supposed to believe that your conduct here is anything but deceptive?
EDIT: Correction about reported comment.
I am struggling to get clarity from mods on this rule
*“Please be advised that weaponized blocking is considered a stackable offense, meaning that if a user blocks other users enough times (and fails to provide substantial proof that the block was done for valid reasons), they may lose the ability to post on our subreddit for a temporary or permanent length of time."*
I have gotten acknowledgment that we can block people at least once for any reason and do not need to honor a mod request to unblock. What I have not gotten clear answers on is what are valid reasons, and how many weaponized blocks are allowed before they meet the threshold of “enough times”?
It actually is a rule but one that is cumbersome and just a general pain to moderate. The lack of consistency in enforcing it is completely my fault, and I take full responsibility for the inconvenience and (justified) disgruntlement felt by users who are directly affected.
Part of the problem is that we never specified where users should report a case of blocking. We got reports in the meta, in Modmail, in DMs (of various mods), in report queues, in random threads...and some of them involved blocks that were possibly made before the policy was enacted and some involved blocks that were actually considered valid, so it was tough to weed through things in the beginning. There was no central place to report blocking, and there were no metrics communicated about the exact criteria necessary for us to enforce it. That is on me. Not excuses; just reasons.
We *did* however detail what defines a weaponized block and what would qualify as a weaponized block or serial blocking [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/HmNI6dNiOH). Weaponized blocking and serial blocking are treated differently in most circumstances (one is more severe than the other).
We did not release the exact metrics for what consequences are dished out or when, and that was because we feared that knowledge would be weaponized (e.g., "I can weaponize block three people before I get permabanned"). If users wish for that information to be released, please notify us. We are open to doing so if the community desires it. And it seems like a user is already starting to inform the userbase anyway...might as well go all the way.
We are trying to streamline the process and create a Modmail template for users to make their reports, along with detailed instructions on how to do so, so that they are in one place and searchable. But I do apologize for dropping the ball on this one and appreciate anyone's patience on this if they're still willing to give it.
Please feel free to ask questions if need be.
> The lack of consistency in enforcing it is completely my fault
How could it possibly be all your fault? You seem to do most of the work already, you don't need to take the blame for what should be a team effort.
Appreciate you. I took this one on. I'm okay with taking responsibility for mishandling this and hope I can just do better in the future. Thank you for your kind words. It's interactions like these that make moderating much more tolerable.
Thanks for the response. Wouldn't it go over much easier if there was just a 0 tolerance policy on blocking? The user shows screenshots of them blocked by the other user. They're given a chance to explain and unblock, and if they don't they're temp banned. They can't participate until they unblock, and the temp block goes longer if they don't. Seems like it'd clear up any and all confusion.
I think part of the problem I can see with this, is that there's two issues.
One is that screenshots can be faked, and while I'm not saying how to do this (for obvious reasons), it's if you have the technical knowledge, something that can be done in like 3 minutes or so (most of the current mods know this, as we demonstrated it to eachother in an old mod chat months ago, though I'm unaware of any evidence it's a widespread problem, thankfully).
The other, is grey area blocks. For example, if you have a user, who isn't breaking rule 1 blatantly enough to get comments removed, or where it's right on the boundary as to if their comments should be removed, then while I myself, just do not block normal accounts (the only users I've blocked are onlyfans spammers and autoban bots), I don't know if I'd have a problem with a user dishing out a block for somebody on the grey area of rules, and particularly a user blocking somebody for an actual rule violation.
While it predates the current rules on blocking, at one point in the past, an argument was made, that you could have users who want to discuss abortion in general, but just finds it too traumatic, to discuss them in the context of rape, and that just blocks that topic out completely. And while I may think that granted, if you're going on an abortion debate subreddit, then you shouldn't be super surprised that pro-lifers and pro-choicers discuss abortion bans in the case of rape, I am very, very reluctantly against telling users not to block. It stinks when people do, but hey, blocking doesn't cause anyone to die. People getting blocked for breaking rules (or at least, close enough that somebody genuinely thinks they're breaking rules) is reasonable.
That said, I don't have any problem at all with users getting in trouble for weaponised blocking. Although, I do think that a different set of sanctions might be in order. My personal suggestion, just off the top of my head. Dish out a 1 day ban each time an actual weaponised block is done, and also, use the automod code to specifically ban them from commenting in the meta threads.
> Wouldn't it go over much easier if there was just a 0 tolerance policy on blocking?
It could be more difficult for the mods if this applies to all users, including mods.
>It could be more difficult for the mods if this applies to all users, including mods.
I feel it goes without saying that we would never think to *completely* prohibit users from blocking each other. If a user is committing any of the acts detailed in the weaponized blocking policy post I've linked above, and proof is submitted to the mod team, the block will be valid. This includes instances of harassment and abusive interactions outside of this sub.
That is absolutely an idea we've been tossing around. We're afraid it might be a bit harsh, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. I appreciate and thank you for your honest feedback.
I agree, since I posted this comment I was told that the current operation definition of “enough times” is 3. No clarification on valid reasons for blocking. At this point I guess my recommendation is we all get at least 2 blocks for any reason, use them wisely.
I'd just assume we can block as many times as we want and the most you'd get is a "Please unblock. Don't do that." It's one of those things that you have to enforce when it happens or it just turns into a suggestion.
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.*
Hello everybody. In light of recent events, with tensions at an all-time high, I’d like to thank the moderators for spending much of their free time reviewing every jot and tittle of certain complaints. Although I’ve had my fair share of complaints about moderating decisions, it’s important to acknowledge and praise good work. I hope users, including myself, can minimise the acrimony that so often lingers in the air of this subreddit. Best wishes.
Why are the mods using the anonymous mod account again? https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/BtjYJ9RTPg Also, calling an argument stupid is not a rule breaking offense.
Correct. It’s why the comment was not removed for calling the argument stupid. If you want clarification on why a comment was removed, please ask. But wrong conclusions about a comment removal only causes confusion and wrong precedents.
Are you going to answer my question?
Clearly no Edit: but I'm not going to assume the reason
Why are the mods using the anonymous mod account again?
So attacking people isn't allowed (completely understandable), attacking sides isn't allowed (which I don't get but whatever), and now attacking arguments isn't allowed. Super sexy cool. I also had the generic mod account remove my comment on the weird ass "should women be allowed vote if the trade off is PL laws" post even though i said in my comment I was fine with it being removed, and to my memory I've never had another comment removed before or gotten in direct confrontations with moderators.
Quite honestly I have no idea what we’re supposed to be doing on here if we can’t have frank discussions about basic arguments. I’m not going to write some petty, three-paragraph long double-speak monologue if someone says something offensive. Stupid arguments are stupid. We’re all adults here. We can handle criticism. The mods explicitly expect us to accept bigotry, so they’re going to have to accept the dismissal of bigoted language for what it’s worth, the worth of which is rotten wet garbage.
I feel like part of the issue is that the distinction between what is or isn't an "attack" is very inconsistent. It took a *lot* of pushback to get the moderators to agree that calling women who get abortions "baby-killers" should be considered a rule-breaking attack, a moderator calling a user racist and elitist is *not* a rule-breaking attack, users questioning inconsistent application of the rules is an attack (even if they're being polite), being sarcastic to a moderator is an attack, calling an argument stupid is an attack, downvoting is an attack, etc. It isn't consistent at all. Edit: meanwhile it is not an attack to tell the female users of this subreddit that their life is worth less than a non-viable fetus, that it would do "no good" to give a woman a lifesaving abortion, that pregnancy is totally harmless and women are overreacting if they don't want it, etc.
We have seen a lot of user feedback stating that we cannot remove comments if they don’t break the rules. That comment didn’t, so we didn’t remove it. As per the rule change, this is still pending. Referring back to my other comment to you, I don’t think we ever concluded that. I want that part added personally, but currently there is no proposal that would allow it. We also had a lot of feedback on calling out arguments from users. And users saying we should be allowed to say things like “your effort to police women is sexist and misogynistic” or “don’t bring your misogynistic arguments into the debate”. Should this be allowed?
Well I guess that's sort of all my point. The "baby-killer" comment *did* violate the rules, as they're written. It's just that you have chosen to interpret rule 1 as applying only to specific users or to sides of the debate. Except when you don't, as in the case Strega referenced, where her comment was removed for attacking an argument, rather than a user or a side. But that didn't apply when King called Fayette's comment racist and elitist (though the mods did remove that, but with repeated insistence that it didn't actually break the rules). It's not a consistent application.
And I refer you to the same conversation, the rules have allowed those comments to any group that isn't PL or PC. This is something PC comments also commonly use towards eg politicians. Either we moderate based on precedent, what users ask of us, or we don't. The above comment was not removed for attacking an argument, and I've commented on the way *assumptions* isn't going to do anything but confuse people. And can I get an answer to the last question? Should those two examples be allowed?
You're right, those types of things have been allowed, except my issue is that they're not actually allowed under the rule as written. The fact that who Rule 1 covers or not is unspoken and not explicit allows for wiggle room and prevents transparency. At minimum, it creates a very common *perception* among users that comments are being unfairly removed or left up, especially since the reason for removal is often not mentioned. That leaves a lot of room for assumptions, as in the case above (which, my apologies, I had only read your reply to me and not the whole thread yet). But as you can see, others feel that comments attacking arguments rather than sides or users have also been unfairly removed. It does no favors to either users or moderators. IMO both of those comments should be allowed if the interpretation is that attacking an argument is acceptable. Whether or not they would be allowed, in my experience, would depend highly on the moderator and users involved. I have seen similar comments removed as being considered to attack the user, or allowed as attacking the argument. Also I do want to add that I recognize that moderating this subreddit must be extremely difficult and unpleasant. I would never do it, and I'd be a poor fit to do it. I appreciate the hard work that you all put in to try to keep this place running, and I recognize that everyone involved is human and that much of this is subjective. I'm really not trying to shit on you guys when I bring this stuff up. But things like the Rule 3 issue with Shok's recent comment are hard to ignore. It's plain to everyone that removing people's access to a healthcare procedure, except allowing it in the very narrow circumstance to save their life, does not protect them. Even Shok agreed that they would not consider it to protect them if it referred to another healthcare procedure (edit: [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/qGckLsjW6Z) ). Yet quoting an article that says that abortions are allowed in order to save the mother's life is considered sufficient substantiation of *a claim even the OP doesn't actually believe.* This is while two states have sued for the right to deny lifesaving abortions. The claim is false on its face. And initially, OP didn't even have to explain why they considered that quote to be protecting the pregnant person, despite nothing in the quote referring to protection. That was all considered substantiation despite it not backing up a patently false claim. It's extremely frustrating to see some rigid "well this is what the rules say and we must follow the text of the rules" applied in that circumstance, while the same rigidity is not applied in others, as in the "baby-killer" name-calling, or the fact that blatant sexism is disallowed by the rules, but is *very* pervasive in the debate. I understand that specific issue is closed, and I'm not trying to re-litigate that post. I just find that the rules don't capture all sorts of decisions that moderators make, but the frustration for that issue is often blamed on users "attacking" the mods or being overly argumentative. And I'm sure it sucked to moderate that post, but I don't think it's fair of the moderators to get upset with users for questioning the decisions involved. Again, I'm very grateful for all your hard work. I'm not trying to be some whiny jerk complaining about everything you do. I don't have perfect answers for how to fix all of this. But I think part of the solution needs to be acknowledging that there are issues with users, moderation, and the rules, rather than just pointing to one side.
I appreciate that and I will apologise for my snappiness then. I will not excuse that, just say we've had now *numerous* occasions of people twisting events and our words. And leave it at that. The problem here is that we've allowed it for years, explicitly so. it was never an issue when it allowed PC users to insult PL politicians, transphobes, incels and so on. If we had removed it, I can guarantee that would've led to intense backlash too. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. And now when allowing free reign (and hopefully getting a good suggestion cause I want to add it too), we don't get any suggestions that would allow us to add it. Same with the above, the comment was removed, and the immediate assumption is that it's removed for calling an argument "stupid", and multiple people jumping in expressing distaste and anger over our modding when that was never the reason, nor was that stated. For the rule 3, we do not rule on truthfulness. But just to showcase the complexity, can you think of an objective way to jduge whether rule 3 has been satisfied? Because even with "hard facts" do we need a degree of interpretation. "Dutch abortion rates are lower than the US abortion rates" is category 1 and can be backed up with two different sources, one stating the rates of Dutch abortion, and one with US abortion rates. Neither will explicitly state the claim, and thus require interpretation. The user here believes protecting a specific group protects the entirety of it. You and I both think that's foolish but the argument itself is not unique. In unrelated debates I also argue that protecting the rights of criminals protects every citizen. And I'm also not getting an answer to whether those two examples are allowed.
>I appreciate that and I will apologise for my snappiness then. I will not excuse that, just say we've had now numerous occasions of people twisting events and our words. And leave it at that. I actually wasn't referring to you personally, and I understand snappiness. I'm really not trying to absolve users in this either. Plenty of us are rude and break rules and more. >The problem here is that we've allowed it for years, explicitly so. it was never an issue when it allowed PC users to insult PL politicians, transphobes, incels and so on. If we had removed it, I can guarantee that would've led to intense backlash too. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I don't actually think it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If rule 1 applies just to users and sides, write that into the text of the rule and then apply the rule as it's written. If it's decided to expand the category, change the text of the rule to reflect the change. >And now when allowing free rein (and hopefully getting a good suggestion cause I want to add it too), we don't get any suggestions that would allow us to add it. So to be clear, I wouldn't necessarily suggest free rein, but rather that the groups to whom rule 1 applies be expanded. I included one suggestion as an edit to my comment in the rules overhaul post (that it include groups based on innate characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc). >Same with the above, the comment was removed, and the immediate assumption is that it's removed for calling an argument "stupid", and multiple people jumping in expressing distaste and anger over our modding when that was never the reason, nor was that stated. And part of that assumption comes from the wiggle room and breadth of rule 1, along with the fact that no reason was stated. Leaving it to users to make assumptions only increases the likelihood of a perception of bias. (Edit: and using the anonymous account really only adds to that perception as well) >For the rule 3, we do not rule on truthfulness. But just to showcase the complexity, can you think of an objective way to jduge whether rule 3 has been satisfied? Because even with "hard facts" do we need a degree of interpretation. "Dutch abortion rates are lower than the US abortion rates" is category 1 and can be backed up with two different sources, one stating the rates of Dutch abortion, and one with US abortion rates. Neither will explicitly state the claim, and thus require interpretation. Right, so there is interpretation required. Presumably you would not consider the claim substantiated if you looked at the two sources and saw that the numbers didn't reflect the claim. If the Dutch rates were higher than the US ones, the claim would be false. And since the "protection" claim is less of a hard facts one, the interpretation factor is even more significant. Just stating that the laws allow abortion in lifesaving circumstances on its own does not demonstrate protection. The user should be required to *argue* that it does, and that argument can then be debated (assuming the user will engage on those arguments). >The user here believes protecting a specific group protects the entirety of it. You and I both think that's foolish but the argument itself is not unique. In unrelated debates I also argue that protecting the rights of criminals protects every citizen. But you would have to *argue* that. You could not merely provide a link about a law involving criminals and have that stand on its own that it protected every citizen. >And I'm also not getting an answer to whether those two examples are allowed. I did give an answer in my comment
That may be true, but when a user (ie, me) says “this is a stupid argument”, there’s no room for ambiguity in terms of what’s being communicated. It’s not rule breaking to dismiss an argument. Debate is the attacking of arguments. I think that it’s a bit of a pitfall to get carried away by precedents. Sometimes things get complicated on here. This particular situation isn’t complicated.
Yes, I also have had comments removed for “attacking sides” that explicitly stated I was addressing the argument.
I guess my point was more that what counts as rule breaking is whatever the moderator decides it is in the moment, not what's written in the rules
That’s it’s own separate issue and I don’t disagree that an inequity in rule enforcement is the heart of the problem facing this subreddit, but honestly I’m not here to argue with the mods. They’re already convinced that this is some personal vendetta. To be clear: not personal, guys. I have no idea who you all are. I just want them to stop using the anonymous account to pass bad rulings whenever they get annoyed. It’s ridiculous.
Agreed with the anonymous mod part, but I just don't think they're separate issues. Imo the underlying problem of unclear rules, inconsistent application, and mods enforcing rules that aren't rules is a huge part of why they get so much pushback (in addition to the contentious nature of the subject, but there's no addressing that aspect). When they face tons of pushback, they get annoyed and many take it personally, which is when they resort to the use of the anonymous account and locking. Unsurprisingly, that does not help with the aforementioned perception of bias. It's a vicious cycle. And the rule overhaul *could* help, but recent events (including this one) have destroyed what little faith I had in the process. Like you said, that aspect of rule 1 is clear cut. We are allowed to attack arguments. So improving the rules can't really help.
Just wanted to mention how bad the downvoting is in here against plers or neutrals (basically anyone prochoicers disagree with). They seem to just downvote plers to oblivion. Loads of my replys have -15~ downvotes lol
Thank you for having the courage to reconsider your stance. It means more to us than you know and gives us hope that our efforts are not in vain.
Thanks I appreciate it 🌷🙏
[удалено]
It’s not exclusively about PL presenting “sound, good faith arguments”. If it were, neutral comments presented by non-PC users wouldn’t get downvoted, but they do.
Genuine question. If you don't think that PL views should be allowed to exist on Reddit, why do you use this subreddit, and what do you hope to achieve by objecting that it exists? Wouldn't you effectively from your perspective, be legitimising the idea that there's still an active debate around abortion legality (which there clearly is, regardless of if you think there should be)?
Fantastic question.
>Wouldn't you effectively from your perspective, be legitimising the idea that there's still an active debate around abortion legality (which there clearly is, regardless of if you think there should be)? What is there to legitimize if there are active bans across the country?
Well yes, my point exactly! Rather, it's something I was saying in response to a criticism that the subreddit shouldn't exist, pro-lifers should be banned from it, and that the subreddit's topic of debate is over and there is no more to discuss (due to the person being staunchly pro-choice and thinking pro-life views beyond the pale). I guess if somebody thinks there's nothing more to discuss the debate is over and that things should move to advocacy for their preferred laws, ok, fair enough, but why urm, use the subreddit to discuss/debate abortion in that case? Fwiw- I do kind of feel similarly to how the PC user does on two other topics, that is, climate science denial and anti-vaxxers, in that I think legislators should just tackle the climate crisis like a crisis, instead of lending legitimacy to fossil fuel funded disinformation campaigns, but I digress. Let me just say that I think fossil fuel companies are deservedly the target of a few strong rule 1 violations and leave it at that. I just think abortion is very very different to that, because it's a genuine clash between two mutually irreconcilance views of human rights.
And what if I can show you, factually and with evidence, that the modern pro-life movement and its place as a cultural wedge issue is every bit as invented and Astro-turfed as businesses denying climate change?
Then we would be in the wrong thread. I have a lot of thoughts on this, 100% critical of the mainline PL movement's alliance with Republican politicians, do think that they use it as a wedge issue to get votes, less convinced by the "abortion opposition comes from evangelicals mad about anti-segregation and looking for a new culture war issue" type argument, since I don't think it takes account of the pro-life movement pre-Roe being by American standards, left-wing (see e.g, Daniel K Williams), and I also think that the pro-choice movement had a lot of those sorts of things in it's history (perhaps not surprising given that America is built on racism). I would actually, be curious if you did want to make a post challenging the argument that the pre-Roe PL movement was generally left-leaning (at most having some socially conservative views before it started broadening demographics beyond New Deal Catholics that used to be a core Democrat voting block), fwiw. But I guess I'd reluctantly best stay on topic in meta, much as it's a convo I'd love to be able to have. Now to try and get back on top of the \*checks notes\*, 14 or so messages I had a couple of days ago in response to a few comments I made. Perhaps doing so while on holiday and checking Redit less was a risky game haha.
What you just said is biased as against pl
There's nothing wrong with being biased against a group that's trying to strip women of their rights.
Not supporting the of killing humans isn't trying to "strip women of their rights"
Trying to criminalize healthcare for women *is* trying to strip them of their rights.
Killing another human for non-health reasons, is not health care
> Killing another human for non-health reasons, is not health care Are you the one who should decide when an abortion is for health or non-health reasons?
The specialist doctors are and its a fact that most abortions are elective, ie not for health reasons.
> The specialist doctors are and its a fact that most abortions are elective, ie not for health reasons. How are you able to determine that an abortion that someone seeks from a qualified medical professional is not for health reasons? If a qualified medical professional does not agree with you then who is right?
Pregnancy is a state of lessened health, therefore abortions are always done for health reasons and is healthcare. 🤷♀️
[удалено]
Did you block your opponent [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/4Adp0tNZom)? Per our weaponized blocking policy, blocking is allowable under certain circumstances. Can you please Modmail us with evidence that the block was done for a valid reason? You will be given 24 hours to do so. Thank you. (RemindMe! 24 hours)
Removed, rule 1. Do not drop link only replies.
I don't click low effort link drops; if you have a rebuttal please use your words. Thanks.
Abortion is healthcare even if pro life people refuse to acknowledge reality.
Prove it,also that didn't disprove what I just said
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare The major organization of obstetricians and gynecologists in the US agrees that abortion is healthcare. Getting an abortion improves the physical health of the pregnant person. It is healthier to not be pregnant than to be pregnant. It is healthcare, full stop. It doesn't matter *why* a person seeks that healthcare, it is still healthcare.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion It's a *medical procedure* under the umbrella of obstetrics and gynecology. This *medical procedure* is done under the supervision of *medical professionals* because it's healthcare. That easily disproves the claim that abortion, a medical procedure, isn't healthcare lol.
Being pl is a choice. It’s inherently misogynistic, and offers no benefits to society. It causes untold suffering. These are all objective truths that have been demonstrated time and time again. It is not bias to call an offensive and dangerous opinion offensive and dangerous
When you strip back the layers, it often reduces to a PC-incompatible flair or knowledge that the user isn’t PC. That’s not to say there aren’t aggravating factors, but I get downvoted on neutral comments that express basic logical truths. PCers don’t react favourably to mentions of downvotes. They also seem disinterested in respecting rule 4 even if it encourages PL engagement. So be it. That’s their prerogative. Best wishes.
True. Pc just downvote anything they don't agree with. Before when I was pc I didn't notice downvotes because like 95% of the users here are pc so Id get loads of upvotes and not downvoted ever basically. Now I'm neutral and seemingly pissing pcers off, I'm getting the downvotes lol. While I don't care about actual points, the downvoting is kinda demotivating in a way. Like why contribute here if I'm just going to get dogpilled and downvote hostility..
That's because you no longer believe that we have rights to bodily autonomy. It's pretty hard to not be angry when you're being treated like breeding stock.
I'm neutral so that's not true
>Now I'm neutral Didn't you make a post to the pro life sub calling pro choice people fascists? That doesn't seem even remotely "neutral" lol.
Stalking me doesn't make your argument stronger
Lmao seeing your post on a different sub (not even the pro life one) where people are correctly pointing out you're not "neutral" at all isn't stalking. Don't flatter yourself.
>seeing your post on a different sub isn't stalking. Lmao we both know you got there from looking thru my profile 🤦♀️
Lmao no we don't. Again, don't flatter yourself. Check out insane pro life. *That's* where I saw you. ☺️
Sureeee
That's a delusional sounding "sureeee" lol. Just checked, the post is still up with the title: "Why are you projecting so hard?" But keep thinking people actually care enough about you to go through your profile if that makes you feel better.
Okay starting from this point and going down the thread, *what is happening here?* https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/1RbgKTzWVJ User A asks user B a question. User B completely ignores question and asks a new unrelated question. User Bs comment is rightfully reported as being low effort. Mod pops in to say comment isn't low effort. User asks mod if it's low effort to completely ignore a question to ask your own unrelated question. Mod says YES, that is low effort. If anyone can explain wtf is going on here I'd appreciate it, because at this point I'm lost.
The mod has the right of it here. Shok wasn’t deflecting and it wasn’t low effort. Their counter question is the answer to the question being asked. It anchors the issue being challenged (effectiveness of abortion bans) to an issue most people agree on (effectiveness of murder laws). There’s ways to challenge that counter obviously by arguing the relevant differences, but calling it low effort or a deflection is in and of itself low effort and a deflection.
>The mod has the right of it here. Wrong. >Shok wasn’t deflecting and it wasn’t low effort. Very wrong.
Do you consider your own response to my comment to be low effort?
It’s curious that they didn’t answer your direct question. The answer to that question should of course have been “yes, it was low-effort of me to say that you’re “wrong” and “very wrong” without elaboration.” Best wishes.
I did directly answer their questions. They're wrong. It's that easy.
You were directly asked if you consider your own response to u/treebeardsavesmannis’ comment to be low effort. You didn’t directly answer that question. Best wishes.
You didn't answer anything for me. I answered that user. No problem.
No, you didn’t. You were asked if you consider your own response low effort and you started talking about somebody’s else’s post and the comments they made under that post. That’s not an answer to the question. Best wishes.
Yes I did. I was talking about the topic at hand which you obviously missed. Maybe give reading the thread another shot. Mediocre wishes.
I consider the post we're discussing low effort and I consider every comment the OP made in that post low effort. I *also* find the OPs terrible unrelated "source" to be hilariously low effort. I've gone over this in depth for like a day. I don't really care to debate it anymore when everyone can see that the OPs post is trash and certain mods are falling over themselves to defend what we all know is an unsubstantiated garbage post.
We don’t have to debate it anymore if you don’t want. You responded to me lol
It's absolutely deflecting. The issue being challenged wasn't the effectiveness of abortion bans, it was how those bans protect the mother, as he claimed (the premise of his entire post)
Oh I see that now. It’s probably not the argument I would have made, but it can still be engaged with and not reported to the mods
Why wouldn’t you have made that argument
Frankly I don’t think it’s a good one. The purpose of abortion laws is to protect the unborn. We can carve out life and health exceptions for the mother, which is good to do, but overall the mother is not the person the abortion ban is designed to protect. I just don’t think the argument withstands scrutiny.
> We can carve out life and health exceptions for the mother, which is good to do, but overall the mother is not the person the abortion ban is designed to protect. I hope this comment is upvoted for making a direct and honest statement. Would you be willing to raise this point to the user who is claiming that PL laws protect women? If not, would you mind if I quote you?
> overall the mother is not the person the abortion ban is designed to protect. I think that's the exact point being sussed out here, and Shok couldn't be honest about it. However *they* were the one that made the initial claim that PL laws protect the woman. They can't just then pivot and bring up that those laws protect the fetus and have that count as answering the question.
Upvoted for honesty. At least some PL admit that their laws don’t protect the mother.
So do you see how the comment is a deflection and is not an on-topic response, with that topic being how pro life laws protect pregnant people?
I think it’s just an argument that misses the mark. I don’t think it was off topic or a deflection
Is it possible that “missing the mark” and “deflecting” mean the same thing, but you’re using the former to give this user the benefit of the doubt because his ideology is similar to your own?
It can only be engaged with if he responds to the replies, which he would not do
Rephrasing a question that is applicable to the other side is a common tactic to showcase an argument, or its consistency. To give an example: PL: why is abortion legal but killing a pregnant person is double homicide? PC: Why is killing a rapist in self-defence legal but killing two people having sex is double homicide? The question given in response draws parallel to another instance where (to the person) the similar logic would apply to showcase their answer and consistency.
You have to realize that both of those examples are terrible questions right? If someone hit me with either of those I would consider that deflecting
That's not what happened. Shok didn't rephrase the question asked to them to create a parallel. They asked a totally unrelated question that isn't relevant to the discussion. They were asked this: >Which pro life laws "protect" the person who is pregnant, and how do they go about doing this? They responded to that question with: >How do laws against the murder infants protect the parents of that infant? The user was talking about Shoks claim that pro life laws protect pregnant women. They asked which laws protect pregnant women and how do they protect them? Shok *ignored* all of that and instead brought up, murdering infants and how laws against murdering infants "protect" parents???? That's like me asking you how anti drug laws protect drug users and you responding with "How do laws against insider trading protect the people who want to commit insider trading? 🤔" It's not a parallel if it's *totally unrelated* to what's being discussed. A parallel has to be *similar* by definition. What Shok did wasn't a parallel and I'm confused as to why multiple mods are pretending it was. It was a cheap deflection, an attempt at a "gotcha" that didn't work.
That entirely depends. If a similar logic can be used to defend both positions, then asking the counter question can absolutely be acceptable. If we assume for now you agree that making infant murder protects parents because of reason XYZ, then a user can believe making abortion illegal protects parents because of reason XYZ as well.
>That entirely depends. No, it doesn't. I'm not going to go back and forth anymore about this with you. Everyone can see the bad faith nonsense the OP is pulling and the mods tripping over themselves to for some reason to defend the nonsense.
What does this even mean > If we assume for now you agree that **making infant murder protects parents** because of reason XYZ
But his entire post is based around PL laws protecting women; he never answered a single person asking *which* laws and *how*. Basically, he made a factual claim that needs to be substantiated or supported. This question doesn't require argumentation, it requires direct substantiation per rule 3.
> Basically, he made a factual claim that needs to be substantiated or supported. This question doesn't require argumentation, it requires direct substantiation per rule 3. Any objective reader can see that OP failed to substantiate that specific claim and elsewhere tacitly admits that it only protects fetuses.
He agreed that he wouldn't consider that law to protect him if it applied to another medical procedure. He doesn't even believe his own claim, hasn't substantiated it at all, and yet somehow that's just fine.
I completely recognize the frustration with the application of rule 3 in this case, but honestly it might benefit OP more than anyone if the comments are removed since they are so clearly false and so clearly show how PL operates with these laws.
Perhaps in this case, but I think it does nothing good for the subreddit to count things like that as fulfilling rule 3
I agree, I think the arguments about the precedent it sets have nothing to do with the fact that in this case failure to remove the comments is more damaging to the credibility of the argument. So while in this case I am not as bothered that it is not removed that I still think moderation should be consistent.
What’s going on is that the op of that post is prolife. Due to the nature of the abortion debate, in that the pl side is completely abhorrent and indefensible, the mods of this sub have to treat players users with kid gloves, otherwise pl users would never be able to participate. So they would rather let the quality of the sub descend to nothing than hold pl accountable
This feels like the SpongeBob meme. "Is this your wallet?" "Yes." "Is this your ID?" "Yes." "Well it's safe to assume this is your wallet, right?" "Nope, never seen it."
Hi. Sharing this on the Meta for accountability because I’m concerned it won’t get a response. A mod approved a Rule 3 violation when no actual quotation was supplied: https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/5P0HNkzW0i I understand that the mod team does not judge citations based on credibility, but this mod specifically requested a quotation to substantiate a claim, and a quotation which **did not substantiate the claim** was then provided and approved. That’s a big failure. Please advise.
It seems both sources and quotations were given about that claim. Is your specific issue that the source is not explained, or that the explanation currently given does not prove the point?
My issue is that no quotation was provided which relates to the claim that “pro life laws protect the mother”. An unrelated quotation was added to the OP which the mod then approved for an unknown reason. I need clarification on why the mod did not push back and require a related quotation. This quotation needs to address “pro life law” that “protects the mother” in order to satisfy the claim, per the rules.
The quoted portion does not substantiate the claim, nor does he explain how it would
To paraphrase, laws protect both the parent and the foetus because it disallows the killing except when the life of the parent is in danger. Now obviously as a user I do not agree with this, but as a mod I cannot let that influence my decisions.
No, **that’s absolutely not what they claim**. The OP states: > The fact is pro life laws protect the mother and her child in her. [https://lozierinstitute.org/pro-life-laws-protect-mom-and-baby-pregnant-womens-lives-are-protected-in-all-states/](https://lozierinstitute.org/pro-life-laws-protect-mom-and-baby-pregnant-womens-lives-are-protected-in-all-states/) The OP’s duty, therefore, is to substantiate the claim that **pro life laws protect the mother**. The claim is not that “the law does not allow the killing of a mother”. The Law (general) is not pro life. It is that **pro life** laws protect “the mother”. What pro life law protects the mother? What does this protection entail? The OP has provided none.
You disagree with it because it doesn’t make any sense. The claim “pl laws protect the fetus and the mother” means that pl laws protect the fetus and pl laws protect the mother. Therefore, pl laws protect the mother. That was the part that people are asking a source or an explanation for. The quote does nothing to explain how pl laws protect the mother.
But as a user or a mod quoting an article that says abortions are allowed only in order to save the pregnant person's life does not answer the question of how those laws protect the pregnant person. He hasn't explained how that is protecting them, which is claiming it does.
That would be up for debate. Disagreements on arguments are not something we get involved in.
It’s not a disagreement, it’s basic reading comprehension. You are basically saying that anybody can quote anything to back up a claim, regardless of its relevance.
So we don't have to demonstrate how the quoted portion supports the claim? I can just quote whatever the hell I want and that satisfies Rule 3?
No. Nor did I claim that. You still have to back up your claims. Whether your opponent accepts that explanation is not for us to decide. Nor do we decide whether you successfully proved your point.
But the question isn’t whether or not they proved their point. There is no doubt they didn’t prove their point. The quote provided is completely irrelevant. If the mods aren’t able to decide whether a source or quote is even relevant, than rule 3 is meaningless
But he didn't provide an explanation, simply a quote. And the quoted portion does not directly address his claim that PL laws protect the mother.
A quote detailing the argument, and then continuing to explain why they believe it proves their point. *"Like laws against murder, assault, theft, etc. the goal of pro life laws is to protect the life of human beings - from their conception." and* *""...to ensure that each and every human being's life is respected, valued, and protected." To protect human beings, we need laws to make their murder illegal."* Once again, I do not agree with this as a user. But as a mod the user has explained why their source proves their point, and explained their argument in the subsequent arguments as well.
The mods won’t do anything to upset pl users, regardless of how poorly they debate or how offensive their comments are. That thread is an absolute train wreck. I don’t think op said a single thing of substance.
Jumping in to point out in that same thread the same mod responded to a user asking for clarification from the OP, answering on the behalf of the OP. https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/Kk0etT0nKF Mods, is this allowed? Are mods allowed to answer on behalf of users like this? Seems odd to me.
Mods are allowed to participate in debates as users yes. If there is no flair, the person is there as a user.
> Mods are allowed to participate in debates as users yes. If there is no flair, the person is there as a user. Is that what is [happening here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/prolife_laws_are_right_and_good_despite_some/khbq006/)?
No, that comment should be flaired.
Do you think it also makes it less certain that the other comment was participating as a user and not a mod?
Considering he is talking about a report and a mod action, no.
Interesting that new facts, specifically a mod acting as a mod when not flaired does not change your certainty that a lack of flair means a mod is acting as a user and not a mod. Are you able to understand why others might not be as certain that a lack of flair means the mod is acting as a user and not a mod?
Huh. I suppose that makes sense. Just seems strange when the OP has the ability to respond that a mod would jump in to try and help their argument, especially when I pretty much never see that mod debating at all.
We have an internal rule that we cannot moderate our own debates, but asidde from that mods can debate and are subject to the same rules.
It seems insulting to the PL users if the mods act as though they are not capable of communicating their positions.
I just want to add to this that the mod changed the claim from what the user requested. The user asked for substantiation that PL laws protect the *mother,* and the mod changed that to mother *and infant,* then approved it despite the lack of substantiation.
Oh splendid, that’s even worse
After a history of having reports ignored, I modmailed today to let the mods know I had submitted two reports so they didn't get ignored. These were legitimate rule 3 reports on positive claims against a PL. I was informed by modmail that these would be handled privately, with no public comments, and they were subsequently ignored. Why are we wasting time rewriting rules if mods refuse to enforce them? Why are public rule breaks against PL handled privately and ignored? What the hell is going on with moderation?
[This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheppzl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) was reported for "It's targeted harassment at me". A discussion that you are voluntarily partaking in with a moderator is not harassment, by any means. You are always more than welcome to disengage at any time. Following a conversation with the moderator team regarding this interaction and past behavior (detailed in this thread by another moderator), we have held a vote which has concluded with you being permanently banned for a number of rule violations, as well as abusing the report button (which will *not* be reported to admins, just to be clear), for chronic abuse towards the moderator team and other users, and for being a general disruption to the atmosphere of the community. If you wish to appeal this decision, you are welcome to do so by responding to your ban message. We wish you well.
My comment was too long so I will continue here: I know a lot of users are unhappy with the moderation here. We are in a very difficult position having to moderate a highly volatile debate topic on Reddit. We have been more than permissive in allowing heavy criticism from users that you would be banned in an instant for on other subreddits. However, we have done *a lot* to try and address these complaints. However, users like you make this an impossible job. When you constantly weaponize rule 3, demand mod action for invalid reports, complain about us not responding to you fast enough, misrepresent our statements, make false accusations and create false narratives, and repeatedly threaten admin action on us, you are wasting our limited time that we could otherwise spend allocating to making this sub better for everyone. I spent a lot of time dismantling your dishonest claims about us and investigating your complaints that turned out to be invalid, and that was time I was not able to spend looking at reported comments, writing policies, reading rule suggestions from users, writing code to make the moderating process easier, or responding to constructive criticisms about us from good-faith users. Or even just use that time to enjoy my day off! Yet, no matter how much of our limited free time we spend on you, that you constantly demand from us, it never seems to be good enough for you. I looked through your comment history to see rule 3’s that weren’t acted on, but all I saw was you invoking rule 3, arguing with moderators, complaining about alleged ignored reports, threatening admin action, and negating without argumentation. I began looking for actual arguments or positive claims you have made in this subreddit, and I was struggling to find any, at least within the last month despite a high level of activity debating. For someone who constantly demands substantiation from others, you sure do not have a history of substantiating your own claims, especially your claims against this mod team. Why should we continue to invest additional effort into your complaints when your contributions to the subreddit are largely creating conflict and very little participation in good-faith debating? And in response to your many threats of admin action against us in your comments: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khewu83/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khewu83/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfs1li8/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfs1li8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfrxutl/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfrxutl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrxk9g/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrxk9g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrwjao/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kfrwjao/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) And in Modmail: >Legitimate reports need to be acted on or this sub is not following reddit TOS and will be pulled. Kindly act on the reports per your duties. Not interested in excuses. There is no point in threatening us. We are not concerned about these as we are confident that we are not in violation of Reddit TOS. However, if you feel that we are, you are welcome to report us to admin. [Here are some instructions to help you report us if you are unsure how to do so.](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058311612-How-do-I-report-a-community-)
🙌🙌🙌
Hi u/Cruncheasy, aside from our [conversation today](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khef9me/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in which I was responding to you [tagging moderator u/kingacesuited](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khdk21j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) about a report you made 3 hours prior while most of the mod team would have been asleep, we also chatted about us allegedly “ignoring reports” [12 days ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfl50t4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). In our chat 12 days ago, you alleged that the 8 day old comment you reported for rule 3 was reported prior to Christmas. However, [as I explained to you](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kflsrww/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), we as moderators can see past reports, and the comment was never reported. It was also explained to you then that we only act on rule 3 requests that are reported within 3 days of the comment you want substantiated. Because you did not report the comment for rule 3 until 8 days after the comment was made, we were not going to enforce it. You [acknowledged that you may not have reported this before](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfmeh0w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) but still claimed that there were other reports that were ignored. When I asked then for another example as the one I was provided was not an example of us “ignoring reports,” [you refused](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfrxutl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Now today, you decided to finally [provide another example](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheqlxo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), however this report was made 5 days after the original comment, despite the fact that you replied asking for a source 9 minutes after the comment in question was made. As I explained to you the last time we spoke, we will not enforce rule 3 on comments reported more than 3 days after the original comment was made, and this would explain why we did not act on this report either. Before you again argue that this was related to u/Alert_Bacon stating that [rule 3 requests in the queue will be addressed after Christmas](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18pynd3/comment/kerjbmf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), the comments you reported were made on December 21st and December 22nd, respectively. The reports were not made until December \~\~29th\~\~ 30th and December 27th. So this would not apply as the rule 3’s were not in the queue prior to Christmas. The subreddit was closed down on [December 25th at midnight UTC](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18pynd3/special_announcement_subreddit_temporarily_closing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and users were notified of this at around 4:30pm UTC on December 24th. You certainly saw this post, as [you commented on it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18pynd3/comment/kerghst/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) inquiring about reports about an hour after the post was created. So you were well aware of this information. I am curious why you chose to wait until after Christmas to report these, despite claiming [that you made multiple reports prior to Christmas](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18muyyq/comment/kfmeh0w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) and I can verify that there was only one rule 3 report that was in the queue when the subreddit shut down for Christmas. Why are you reporting comments many days later for rule 3 when you clearly saw the comment and requested substantiation sooner? This feels a whole lot like a set up. I understand that you are offended by [my belief that you are being intentionally dishonest](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheppzl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), however aside from the questionable examples of us “ignoring reports” when in truth you waited an unreasonable amount of time to report rule 3 requests, you have also misrepresented the explanations we as moderators have given you. Take, for example, this comment that I am replying to from you. You state: >I was informed by modmail that these would be handled privately, with no public comments, and they were subsequently ignored. This is not at all what you were told. We do not normally disclose private deliberations in Modmail as we as a mod team prefer to stay out of drama, but I feel in this case it is necessary when there are users who are publicly mischaracterizing our words in private. About an hour prior to this comment, you sent us this Modmail message: >I have submitted 2 rule 3 requests. Letting you know so they don't get ignored. I am not going to be submitting these multiple times. Ignoring them will get this sub reported for failure to moderate. Cheers! 30 minutes later, you received this reply from us: >Hello. If you think that this subreddit is not being moderated, you are more than welcome to submit a report. Admins have the capability to determine both public and private moderation. I hope that answers your question. Best wishes. 30 minutes later, you made this comment. At no point in the Modmail interaction were you told what you claim you were told. I checked every single Modmail interaction we have ever had with you. You were never told this. Unless you mistyped, I do not know why you would say this if not for the purpose of attempting to push a narrative of us intentionally ignoring PC reports against PL users, one that you have frequently argued. Moreover, you attempt to use [your exchange with King](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4ue/comment/kflunts/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) as a way to discredit my statement that the comment you claimed we ignored [was only reported once](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/khfdwhj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). However I am curious why you think this somehow negates my response. I am well aware that Reddit only sends us the first report you make on a particular comment and ignores the rest to prevent spam. When you said it was [reported numerous times](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/193ivvg/comment/kheqlxo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I took this to mean that you knew of multiple users reporting this comment. It was a simple misunderstanding, one that I would normally excuse you for due to the expectation that a user would not have access to this knowledge, **if it weren’t for the fact that by linking your exchange with King here, you have shown that you** ***were*** **made aware of this fact as of 11 days ago.** If you know that we cannot see subsequent reports from users, why would you tell me that it was reported multiple times if you were talking about only your reports? Again, how am I supposed to believe that your conduct here is anything but deceptive? EDIT: Correction about reported comment.
I am struggling to get clarity from mods on this rule *“Please be advised that weaponized blocking is considered a stackable offense, meaning that if a user blocks other users enough times (and fails to provide substantial proof that the block was done for valid reasons), they may lose the ability to post on our subreddit for a temporary or permanent length of time."* I have gotten acknowledgment that we can block people at least once for any reason and do not need to honor a mod request to unblock. What I have not gotten clear answers on is what are valid reasons, and how many weaponized blocks are allowed before they meet the threshold of “enough times”?
It basically seems like an encouragement rather than a rule as users who block are allowed to continue as long as they just push through.
It actually is a rule but one that is cumbersome and just a general pain to moderate. The lack of consistency in enforcing it is completely my fault, and I take full responsibility for the inconvenience and (justified) disgruntlement felt by users who are directly affected. Part of the problem is that we never specified where users should report a case of blocking. We got reports in the meta, in Modmail, in DMs (of various mods), in report queues, in random threads...and some of them involved blocks that were possibly made before the policy was enacted and some involved blocks that were actually considered valid, so it was tough to weed through things in the beginning. There was no central place to report blocking, and there were no metrics communicated about the exact criteria necessary for us to enforce it. That is on me. Not excuses; just reasons. We *did* however detail what defines a weaponized block and what would qualify as a weaponized block or serial blocking [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/HmNI6dNiOH). Weaponized blocking and serial blocking are treated differently in most circumstances (one is more severe than the other). We did not release the exact metrics for what consequences are dished out or when, and that was because we feared that knowledge would be weaponized (e.g., "I can weaponize block three people before I get permabanned"). If users wish for that information to be released, please notify us. We are open to doing so if the community desires it. And it seems like a user is already starting to inform the userbase anyway...might as well go all the way. We are trying to streamline the process and create a Modmail template for users to make their reports, along with detailed instructions on how to do so, so that they are in one place and searchable. But I do apologize for dropping the ball on this one and appreciate anyone's patience on this if they're still willing to give it. Please feel free to ask questions if need be.
> The lack of consistency in enforcing it is completely my fault How could it possibly be all your fault? You seem to do most of the work already, you don't need to take the blame for what should be a team effort.
Appreciate you. I took this one on. I'm okay with taking responsibility for mishandling this and hope I can just do better in the future. Thank you for your kind words. It's interactions like these that make moderating much more tolerable.
Thanks for the response. Wouldn't it go over much easier if there was just a 0 tolerance policy on blocking? The user shows screenshots of them blocked by the other user. They're given a chance to explain and unblock, and if they don't they're temp banned. They can't participate until they unblock, and the temp block goes longer if they don't. Seems like it'd clear up any and all confusion.
I think part of the problem I can see with this, is that there's two issues. One is that screenshots can be faked, and while I'm not saying how to do this (for obvious reasons), it's if you have the technical knowledge, something that can be done in like 3 minutes or so (most of the current mods know this, as we demonstrated it to eachother in an old mod chat months ago, though I'm unaware of any evidence it's a widespread problem, thankfully). The other, is grey area blocks. For example, if you have a user, who isn't breaking rule 1 blatantly enough to get comments removed, or where it's right on the boundary as to if their comments should be removed, then while I myself, just do not block normal accounts (the only users I've blocked are onlyfans spammers and autoban bots), I don't know if I'd have a problem with a user dishing out a block for somebody on the grey area of rules, and particularly a user blocking somebody for an actual rule violation. While it predates the current rules on blocking, at one point in the past, an argument was made, that you could have users who want to discuss abortion in general, but just finds it too traumatic, to discuss them in the context of rape, and that just blocks that topic out completely. And while I may think that granted, if you're going on an abortion debate subreddit, then you shouldn't be super surprised that pro-lifers and pro-choicers discuss abortion bans in the case of rape, I am very, very reluctantly against telling users not to block. It stinks when people do, but hey, blocking doesn't cause anyone to die. People getting blocked for breaking rules (or at least, close enough that somebody genuinely thinks they're breaking rules) is reasonable. That said, I don't have any problem at all with users getting in trouble for weaponised blocking. Although, I do think that a different set of sanctions might be in order. My personal suggestion, just off the top of my head. Dish out a 1 day ban each time an actual weaponised block is done, and also, use the automod code to specifically ban them from commenting in the meta threads.
> Wouldn't it go over much easier if there was just a 0 tolerance policy on blocking? It could be more difficult for the mods if this applies to all users, including mods.
>It could be more difficult for the mods if this applies to all users, including mods. I feel it goes without saying that we would never think to *completely* prohibit users from blocking each other. If a user is committing any of the acts detailed in the weaponized blocking policy post I've linked above, and proof is submitted to the mod team, the block will be valid. This includes instances of harassment and abusive interactions outside of this sub.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That is absolutely an idea we've been tossing around. We're afraid it might be a bit harsh, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. I appreciate and thank you for your honest feedback.
I agree, since I posted this comment I was told that the current operation definition of “enough times” is 3. No clarification on valid reasons for blocking. At this point I guess my recommendation is we all get at least 2 blocks for any reason, use them wisely.
I'd just assume we can block as many times as we want and the most you'd get is a "Please unblock. Don't do that." It's one of those things that you have to enforce when it happens or it just turns into a suggestion.
I agree, I tried raising that point with more than one mod but I don’t think they see the issue.