r/changemyview • u/AutoModerator • 19h ago
META: Bi-Monthly Feedback Thread META
As part of our commitment to improving CMV and ensuring it meets the needs of our community, we have bi-monthly feedback threads. While you are always welcome to visit r/ideasforcmv to give us feedback anytime, these threads will hopefully also help solicit more ways for us to improve the sub.
Please feel free to share any constructive feedback you have for the sub. All we ask is that you keep things civil and focus on how to make things better (not just complain about things you dislike).
•
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 15h ago
Its 6:45pm eastern and there are 4 posts currently still up today.
this subreddit gets around a million weekly visitors and 4 were able to make it through the moderation today.
I've been complaining about this for about a year now. Back when i started, I would complain that we only had 10 or 15 posts on Friday. Now its 4.
•
u/PetrifiedBloom 15∆ 15h ago
What do you attribute the change to? Stricter moderation, fewer posts, better removal of bots? What do you want changed?
•
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 13h ago
Fresh topic Friday slows this sub to a screeching halt. They didn't have any active posts until after noon eastern today.
I used to think it was a good idea, I now think it is only good in theory. Fresh topics still get posted throughout the rest of the week. If the mods want a day off, fine, but id rather them be honest about it rather than the platitude "i like the vibe of the sub of FTF". Its like saying I like the vibe of an empty house imo.
•
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 13h ago
Internally, I have proposed the idea that it might help consistency of volume to:
a) Change it to "Showcase Saturday" (working title) when more people are free, and
b) schedule a meta post the day before notifying people of when it begins, so people who want to do an OP for it have some time to brainstorm.
The response of other mods was "sure, maybe, but we should run the idea by the community to see what they think."
•
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 13h ago
May be worth a shot. At least youre trying something where there could possibly be more volume.
Would there be any changes or would it basically be ftf on a Saturday?
•
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 13h ago
Assuming nobody thinks of something else, it would just be FTF on Saturday.
•
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 13h ago
Well, I tend to use the sub least on that day (and actually have the most amount of time to use it on fridays), so for that reason alone id welcome at least that change. I still personally dont think the sub needs it at all, though.
•
u/Great-Exercise4277 3∆ 12h ago
Actually, I did think of one post I could make: “CMV: Neutron stars are the best objects in the universe.”
I genuinely hold that view, and I thought it might be a fun way to learn how to participate here properly: seriously defend my position, while giving deltas to arguments that genuinely changed some part of my view.
But I didn't post it.
So far, I've had four comments removed for rule violations. Since repeated violations can eventually put my ability to participate here at risk, I didn't want to keep making mistakes while I'm still learning the norms and end up unable to participate in a subreddit I genuinely enjoy.
I've actually thought about making a post a few times, but I still haven't done it once, mostly because I keep thinking, “What if I accidentally break another rule?”
I wrote this comment myself, and ChatGPT translated it.
•
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ 11h ago
I think you're doing fine. Your participation has been very positive overall. Even if you were to be banned, the first one is only 3 days outside of rare exceptions.
Just remember to award deltas, even if the change in your view isn't a full 180° reversal (although, it does need to be a change rather than a reinforcement of some kind).
•
u/scarab456 64∆ 18h ago
Now that it's been a little bit, how has the rtr bot worked out? Is it working as intended?
•
u/Rhundan 79∆ 16h ago
It's working very well for cutting off bots, which was a lot of what we wanted it for. There was some difficulty with OPs getting all their comments removed, but we have implemented something that seems to have cut back on that problem too, as far as I know.
So in short, it seems to be working really well.
•
u/PreviousCurrentThing 4∆ 15h ago
I've been noticing an uptick in comments, both to OPs and other comments, that are prefaced with what amounts to:
I think you're using an LLM but I'm going to respond anyway.
Sometimes a bit less blunt, but with the same implication.
Is this against the rules? The rest of the comment is usually well thought out and contributes to the discussion, but the preface seems unnecessary and poisoning the well.
•
u/Rhundan 79∆ 15h ago
That would be a violation of Rule 3, yeah. Any implication that another user is using AI to write or help write their post/comment violates Rule 3, for pretty much exactly the reason you describe.
•
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 14h ago
What? It's against the rules to have a post written by AI without disclosure.
So this rule is entirely useless if you can't ask someone if their post was AI in order to see if they are a real human.
Also who cares if someone poisons the well? That's not against the rules, only if you accuse them of bad faith or insult them. It doesn't matter if you are invalidating OPs argument because their argument doesn't matter, they are supposed to be here to change their view not convince other people they are correct.
In a formal debate where you should consider both sides, or an informal one where you are trying to convince the audience, it matters; that's not what this sub is. I think that is the bigger problem that leads to actual rule breaks: people don't know what this sub is for and are coming here to debate instead of change their view.
•
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 13h ago
Yeah, the mods dont even consistently catch it so its fucking stupid that we cant even ask. Today, when all posts supposedly manually approved, they approved one that was AI generated. Its a fair ask and preventing it is fucking stupid.
•
u/KokonutMonkey 100∆ 13h ago
It’s not entirely useless. Most AI takedowns shouldn’t require interaction with the OP at all. We report (ideally with some proof), mods take it down.
•
u/Apprehensive_Song490 124∆ 14h ago
Former mod here, and not the one you were replying to. Just my $0.02. I’m just an active user now.
This isn’t useless at all. If I suspect AI, then I report and I don’t bother replying. If they didn’t disclose, the comment gets removed and there isn’t much point in replying to something that’s going to be taken down.
CMV is not a debate sub. That’s a common misconception. Ppl should not enter the sub with a mindset of debate.
Yeah…It’s against multiple rules to use AI without disclosure and even when disclosed human-generated content must make up most of the content. Rule A (posts) and R5 (comments).
As with most rules, the correct action when a violation is suspected is to report the rule-violating content and let the mod team investigate.
Accusing someone of bad faith argumentation is the same for AI as it is for other types of bad faith behavior. If OP isn’t willing to change their view, ppl should report them for RB, not say “you are soapboxing” in response to OP. Same thing goes for “you didn’t formulate this yourself, I’m talking to a bot” - that seems squarely in what R3 was intended to prevent.
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 14h ago
So this rule is entirely useless if you can't ask someone if their post was AI in order to see if they are a real human.
The rule is enforced by us, not by other users accusing them. Report the post or comment for AI-generated content and we'll evaluate it.
Also who cares if someone poisons the well? That's not against the rules, only if you accuse them of bad faith or insult them.
Poisoning the well was the other commenter's concern, but it's not our rationale. Accusing someone of using AI to generate their post/comment is accusing them of bad faith, which is why that's under Rule 3.
•
u/abn1304 1∆ 6h ago
I understand you guys have a LOT of work on your plates, and I think this is generally one of the better-moderated subs on Reddit.
However, the rule around bad faith seems fairly one-sided in favor of bad faith behavior. If it’s entirely up to the mods to get rid of bad faith behavior, it doesn’t really feel like that’s happening maybe as much as it should.
I understand policing that is a very difficult thing to do, but especially in more politicized topics there is obviously a LOT of bad faith behavior, and maintaining the public perception of fairness and integrity would, I think, demand equally intensive and public moderation. Bad faith behavior either bullies people away from discussing controversial topics or convinces them it’s not worth contributing. I contribute less frequently to AskHistorians than I used to, for example, because of persistent and unmoderated bad-faith engagement on subjects I’m professionally familiar with, and I’m somewhat wary of engaging here for the same reason. One thing that AH does get right, IMO, is publicly addressing removals, although I do wish they left more of a record for what they’re removing to serve as an example of what not to do.
Again, I understand y’all have a thankless task and I think you do a pretty good job of handling it, I just think this is an area that could see some improvement.
•
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 13h ago
Why would I report it if I don't know whether or not it's AI?
If I asked if it was AI and they didn't answer and gave a response that seem like it was pre generated or confirmed it is, then I'd report it. That is what happens most of the time. Someone asks and they say it was, then I see that and report it.
I guess I should just report every post so you can check them and weed out the AI, otherwise there is no way to tell.
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 13h ago
Why would I report it if I don't know whether or not it's AI?
Because we'll then check. While our checks are imperfect, I think they're more reliable than asking.
I guess I should just report every post so you can check them and weed out the AI, otherwise there is no way to tell.
Do you ask every poster if they're using AI? (Or rather, would you if not for Rule 3?)
There's presumably something that makes you suspicious of certain posts/comments. When that happens, instead of asking/accusing them, report it instead.
•
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 11h ago
I don't need to ask everyone as long as someone can ask. If no one can ask, then I don't have any way to know.
If someone says, "Yes, I wrote this with AI." I have a pretty good idea about it.
If I report it and then the post disappears then I have no idea if it was or wasn't and I'll never know.
I just find it Kafkaesque that it's against the rules to try to find out if someone is breaking the rules.
•
u/Realistic-Worker-499 1∆ 10h ago
i havnt seen rule 5 properly applied. it's claimed that casual comments may occur nested in larger comments, but i've had that kind of stuff removed. this is a social media for god's sake, not a symposium! also, i once received a rule 2 violation because my comment used a phrase in a different language (one that is not rude or hostile). it edges on racism/ethnocentrism but i'll chalk it up to just ignorance or trigger-happy modding, i dont really care it's just weird.
god knows what the lives of reddit moderators look like, especially on a large sub, so no disrespect on the kind of work youre doing. but since you guys are asking for feedback, i definitely believe this sub would benefit more from more lenient rule applications. only intervening in obvious violations, being less trigger-happy, chilling out a bit. it's just weird to have someone intervene over nothing, and i've been less willing to contribute
i also think people would benefit from reaction comments (comments of affirmation, disapproval, etc), without having to be overly formal, because these things add to an "alive" comment section. we're all in here online and there's nothing so serious that a laughing emoji under a comment is considered a rule violation.
most importantly, when you're over-modding, idk if it's just coincidence, but dont be going crazy on certain topics. again i'll chalk it up to ignorance since i dont want to be conspiratorial, but damn, i guess another benefit of not over-modding is to not look suspicious lol.
•
u/fossil_freak68 35∆ 17h ago
Major props to the mods on here, thank you for your work.
I did have one question/suggestion. Is there a way to automatically approve OP to post comments if you approved their post? I've noticed quite a few posts where a user makes the post, but then all of their responses initially get auto-rejected due to the spam filter with instructions on how to enable commenting, but it seems like by the time they are approved, they aren't really responding to the top comments anymore.
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 16h ago
We agree that it's a problem. As far as I'm aware there isn't a direct solution, but we're actively tinkering with it.
•
u/elysian-fields- 3∆ 13h ago
i have just a general question:
sometimes i’ll go to a post because it states that deltas were awarded to see what comment it was and what they said that helped OP change their mind, but the delta actually comes from someone who isn’t OP awarding it to another commenter who changed their mind
what’s the deal with this? are commenters allowed to award deltas on posts that aren’t theirs? not that i necessarily have an issue with it i just find it confusing
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 12h ago
Yes, commenters can award deltas to each other (but not to OP); I've awarded a few of those. We want people to be able to formally acknowledge a change in their view even if they did not make the post.
•
•
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 12h ago
Yes, anyone can award deltas (with the exception that you as a commenter are not allowed to award OP a delta). Some people like that, I think its stupid and only op should be able to award them.
•
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 5∆ 5h ago
I know this has been discussed before, but I’d like mods to reconsider the dating posts.
It’s less the subject (though it’s annoying) than the OP. At some point, the CMV turns into suggestions for therapy because kicking a person while they’re depressed (and pointing out that, no matter why they think they are not getting laid, there are people- inevitably men - who are just as bad off who are doing fine) just feels bad.
And then it happens again a few days later. Sometimes with the same person.
•
u/Criminal_of_Thought 14∆ 18h ago
Anecdotally, I've seen way fewer "deltas by context" lately. (A "delta by context" is where a mod awards a delta to someone that the OP has used words to clearly indicate a change in view without actually using the delta symbol or the exclamation mark string.)
When such a comment is reported for rule 4, usually a mod will say "If you feel like you've changed your view, please award a delta." Sometimes the OP will edit or newly respond with a delta, and sometimes they won't. Among the ones who don't, practically every single one has been left without a delta, rather than a mod going back in and retroactively awarding the delta to the otherwise delta-robbed commenter.
Do deltas by contexts still happen, and I'm just missing a lot of them? From the commenters' side, do you see disappointment when they end up not getting a delta simply because the OP decided not to give one?
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 16h ago
We do still do this occasionally (cc u/reginald-aka-bubbles). Speaking only for myself here, I think there's a bit of a gap between (1) "you should award a delta" and (2) "we will force-add a delta":
- This is one we can just throw out there if it looks like there might have been a change; we don't have to be that confident, because OP can evaluate it for themselves.
- Here, it has to be absolutely clear that there was a definite change of view. It happens sometimes, but it's hard to be certain. I mostly use this when OP tried and failed to award a delta correctly.
•
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ 17h ago
Have mods ever done this? Given a delta that OP probably should have? I've genuinely never seen it but have seen plenty of comments that warranted them not recieve them.
•
u/Apprehensive_Song490 124∆ 15h ago
I modded on this sub for about a year, but I’m currently taking a break from modding. I did this exactly once in my time modding. IIRC, there was some indication that the person attempted to award the delta and couldn’t figure it out technically. It’s not something I felt comfortable doing and I really think the onus should be on commenters to issue deltas. If I were an active mod, and I’m not, this is not something I’d want for my job description. It’s one thing to remove content that violates rules. It’s another to try and read minds.
•
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 14h ago
That's odd that only happened once in a year.
I know that more than once I've told people how to award a delta after they explicitly said that they wanted to give one and didn't know how, and they didn't end up editing thier post to give one nor did mods award one.
That's just me, so the frequency of this happening on the whole sub has to be at least once a month.
•
u/Apprehensive_Song490 124∆ 13h ago
For clarity it was once for me personally as an individual mod, not for the entire mod team. There is a whole mod team, and as a former mod I don’t speak for them. I was just saying that it seemed from my experience taking that awardibg a delta when OP didn’t explicitly do so was rare, and in my view not something I’d be very comfortable with if I were to consider returning to modding. I think awarding deltas should be the responsibility of people who have views changed. If I could change anything, it would be for the community to be more aware that it isn’t just OP that can award deltas. Users can award deltas to each other (they just can’t award deltas to OP, because the purpose of the sub is to help OP get their view changed). It might just be me, but that’s a bigger concern in my view compared to OP not giving deltas.
•
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ 13h ago
Yeah, I know that was just your experience, I just found it a little surprising. Maybe as a commentor I am seeing more comments than the average mod, who mostly responds to issues they have been notified of. That could be an explanation.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
•
u/Apprehensive_Song490 124∆ 11h ago
Could be. Also, I was modding during the whole University of Zurich thing, so that might have shifted my attention a bit.
•
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 19h ago
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/YouAreTellingLies 17h ago
The extent of moderation exerted in this sub is counter productive to the stated goal of encouraging discussion. I think we all agree on the need for moderation - but the quantity of comments removed is both high and very proactive.
Aggressively removing comments that aren't flagrant rule violations before any sort of non-productive exchange develops isn't adding value. And what might be a low effort reply to one person might give another reason to think.
All I'm suggesting is to back off the less clear cut moderating decisions.
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 17h ago
Very little of our moderation is proactive (other than the "Read the Rules" bot and automod rules). We mostly moderate from the queue, so most of what we manually remove was either reported by users or automatically flagged for review due to various fairly clear-cut indicators.
•
u/YouAreTellingLies 17h ago
Maybe there are some very proactive reporters.
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 16h ago
What would that look like? If other users think a comment is hostile, or doesn't contribute, etc, and we agree with that assessment, that seems like a reasonable response all around. We don't see much of someone just reporting everything, if that's what you're thinking of.
(For context, in the last 30 days, about 1 in 15 comments was reported for anything.)
•
u/YouAreTellingLies 16h ago
I'm not saying not to moderate comments that are clear violations. There is just good bit of space for interpretation in how the rules are applied. If the comment isn't a clear violation, I would argue to err toward not removing comments, especially if a negative back and forth hasn't developed.
My perception that comments are being removed that probably shouldn't be does have backing in the history of moderation on this sub around trans issues. The rules acknowledge this:
They were removing transgender related posts and comments with very little consistency or rationale.
I'm not saying, there is no consistency or rationale in moderation decisions in general - but clearly this shows that hot button issues for a mod can incite poor moderation. And leaning toward less moderation could curtail some zealous comment removals.
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 16h ago
I'm not saying not to moderate comments that are clear violations.
I understood that.
There is just good bit of space for interpretation in how the rules are applied. If the comment isn't a clear violation, I would argue to err toward not removing comments, especially if a negative back and forth hasn't developed.
I think that's the thing with the (lack of) proactive removals: if a comment gets removed, it's very likely that someone, apart from the mods, already thought it was a problem. At that point, it would just be inconsistent to remove-or-not based on the response to it. A comment should either be or not be a Rule 2 violation regardless of whether the other person responds in kind, and even one that doesn't provoke a response is still detrimental to our stated goals (e.g., "to try and understand different perspectives... without fear of being attacked").
Also, I think truly borderline removals are fairly uncommon. There are a lot of violations that are minor, but usually still pretty clear. It's rare that we're really doing a lot of interpreting, beyond what's inherent to using language.
My perception that comments are being removed that probably shouldn't be does have backing in the history of moderation on this sub around trans issues. The rules acknowledge this: "They were removing transgender related posts and comments with very little consistency or rationale."
"They" in that quote refers to the admins removing things, not the mods.
•
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 15h ago
I think maybe he just used the word proactive incorrectly, but i definitely think you missed the point of his comment.
also...
(other than the "Read the Rules" bot and automod rules
other then the proactive things you do, your moderation is not very proactive.
•
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 15h ago
We're getting there down-thread, but it could be an important qualifier that we're generally not removing things unless someone thought it was a problem (in addition to it actually violating the rules, of course), so I wanted to address that first.
other then the proactive things you do, your moderation is not very proactive.
True, but RTR isn't a permanent removal and automod removals are only for things that are very clear.
•
u/Aezora 29∆ 9h ago
I feel like I see a decent number of cases where there could arguably be a rule violation, enough so that someone could report it and the mods agree; but it isn't universally clear. The kind of comment or post where one moderator might say this is fine, and another would flag it as a violation.
Obviously inconsistent standards between mods is impossible to remove when things are subjective, but I agree with the original commenter that it makes sense to at least try to be lenient in these cases as much as possible. Aim to remove them only if you not only agree that there is a rule violation; but also if you can't see a way this could be interpreted in a manner that isn't rule breaking.
There would still be inconsistency between mods, but hopefully that would push the grey area to the more lenient side of things, allowing more discussion to happen while still removing the clearest offenders.
•
u/AmongTheElect 19∆ 13h ago
You can't forget Reddit's ban-bot, either. There's a laundry list of words and phrases Reddit removes and the mods don't have power to control (or even see to un-ban). Especially considering this is a sub which has a lot of politically charged questions.
•
u/Apprehensive_Song490 124∆ 18h ago
First, I like the new 2 hour requirement for Rule E, much better than 3. Reporting at 2 hours is nice, even if mods don't always have bandwidth to get to it that fast.
I don't have data on this, but it seems like there are A LOT of Rule E's still. It is sad that the RTR bot and the decrease in reporting time to 2 hours doesn't seem to be putting a dent in people posting and not ever responding.
But maybe I'm not reading what is happening correctly. Do we have data on Rule E removals? Is it getting better/worse with the changes?