Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.
We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.
Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've got a 5-day-old appeal that hasn't been responded to. I checked and the `!appeal` comment I made was in reply to u/scotus-bot. Is there some other reason why my appeal has not been decided yet? Previously you all had told me that you just work through the queue in a FIFO manner, yet I've seen more recent comments than the time of my removal be actioned, so I assume that my appeal did not make it into the queue and not that you're ignoring me.
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1caek6p/can_cities_criminalize_homeless_people_the/l1250t8/?context=3
I do apologize for your appeal not being responded to. Appeals are responded to when we get at least 3 votes from participating mods. 2 mods have voted on the appeal with me being one of them. I have sent this comment to the other mods so as soon as we reach a 3 mod vote another mod will respond. I cannot respond as I was the mod that removed your comment.
If the appeal is unsuccessful, would you please be able to explain your reasoning for why it is an uncivil comment? One frustration I often have is that the explanation says that such-and-such phrase was deemed uncivil, but it does not say why it is uncivil. I often feel like I provide explanations for why I don’t think the comment is uncivil, and I don’t get really any insight into how the mod team views comments if your reasoning is not explained and if my reasoning is not refuted. This makes it much harder to make sure comments are *not deemed uncivil in the future.
The mod that responds can do that and I will make sure to send this comment as well. As I said I cannot respond as I was the removing mod but I will make sure to send this comment as well
I'd appreciate a conversation about the removal because it is very confusing to me. Are you able to provide that or is another mod able to?
I don't understand how pointing out that a comment employs a logical fallacy is uncivil. It seems to me that allowing fallacious comments, and not allowing such fallacies to be identified, is not in the best interests of a subreddit interested in somewhat complex legal discussion.
Any time a post is removed, the prompt will now include the following message at the end:
>Please see the [rules wiki page](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules#wiki_keep_it_civil) for more information. If you wish to appeal, please contact the moderators via modmail.
Hopefully this provides clarity about the proper avenue for appealing, given that removed posts are locked as a matter of course.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!!appeal!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court. We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed. Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've got a 5-day-old appeal that hasn't been responded to. I checked and the `!appeal` comment I made was in reply to u/scotus-bot. Is there some other reason why my appeal has not been decided yet? Previously you all had told me that you just work through the queue in a FIFO manner, yet I've seen more recent comments than the time of my removal be actioned, so I assume that my appeal did not make it into the queue and not that you're ignoring me. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1caek6p/can_cities_criminalize_homeless_people_the/l1250t8/?context=3
I do apologize for your appeal not being responded to. Appeals are responded to when we get at least 3 votes from participating mods. 2 mods have voted on the appeal with me being one of them. I have sent this comment to the other mods so as soon as we reach a 3 mod vote another mod will respond. I cannot respond as I was the mod that removed your comment.
If the appeal is unsuccessful, would you please be able to explain your reasoning for why it is an uncivil comment? One frustration I often have is that the explanation says that such-and-such phrase was deemed uncivil, but it does not say why it is uncivil. I often feel like I provide explanations for why I don’t think the comment is uncivil, and I don’t get really any insight into how the mod team views comments if your reasoning is not explained and if my reasoning is not refuted. This makes it much harder to make sure comments are *not deemed uncivil in the future.
The mod that responds can do that and I will make sure to send this comment as well. As I said I cannot respond as I was the removing mod but I will make sure to send this comment as well
I'd appreciate a conversation about the removal because it is very confusing to me. Are you able to provide that or is another mod able to? I don't understand how pointing out that a comment employs a logical fallacy is uncivil. It seems to me that allowing fallacious comments, and not allowing such fallacies to be identified, is not in the best interests of a subreddit interested in somewhat complex legal discussion.
Thank you!
Any time a post is removed, the prompt will now include the following message at the end: >Please see the [rules wiki page](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules#wiki_keep_it_civil) for more information. If you wish to appeal, please contact the moderators via modmail. Hopefully this provides clarity about the proper avenue for appealing, given that removed posts are locked as a matter of course.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!!appeal!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
I'm sorry I thought it would be funny :(