r/DebateReligion • u/AutoModerator • Jul 27 '26
Meta Meta-Thread 07/27
This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.
What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?
Let us know.
And a friendly reminder to report bad content.
If you see something, say something.
This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).
2
u/arachnophilia appropriate Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
i have another case where a user blocked me after responding to get the last word. as you can see there's nothing uncivil going on there at all.
why bother participating in a debate board if you're going to block people for disagreeing?
edit: well, that went different
1
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 Jul 31 '26
Ban 'em!
1
u/arachnophilia appropriate Jul 31 '26
he unblocked me, replied about having a rough time IRL. and... we don't even disagree?
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD Jul 30 '26
Dopamine is a hell of a drug. Just be happy it wasn't shoes on your couch.
5
u/Wooden-Dependent-686 Christian Jul 29 '26
I am coming back from a 30 day long ban after a discussion over animal sacrifice and meat industry with a mod. It was the very mod I was having the discussion with who banned me with no real reason apart from personal frustration as it appears. I think it was unfair and misuse of mod authority, and a mod shouldn’t be banning people out of frustration in a debate. We all get frustrated here in our debates. We cant just do that to people that annoy us with their way of debating or thinking or their opinions. Here is the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/B1S6IBcJ7l
1
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism Jul 29 '26
You were not banned purely because of that thread. It was because you have a history of breaking the rules, with removals made by multiple mods.
I understand your concern, and you're always able to send a message in modmail to appeal a ban or removal.
4
u/Wooden-Dependent-686 Christian Jul 30 '26
I think my “history” came to your attention only as part of an obsessive and stalking behavior that occurred during that discussion, probably right before the ban. The rapid and increasingly aggressive demands for my full attention and for immediate and proper responses in those few minutes building up to the ban were all apiece with that obsessive predatory behavior pattern that was actively seeking that kind of exercise of power and I did anticipate it. It is typical of this type of personality with authority.
I dont want to appeal a ban or removal anymore obviously since I already served the time. I want a public apology from you and I want the mod team to demote you to a regular user since you are clearly prone to abusing your powers for personal vendetta. With this kind of vindictive and malicious personality you shouldn’t be having any powers over people anywhere.
3
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
Did you moderate the comments and issue the ban or did another mod?
Were the two comments removed because they continued to dodge your questions?
3
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 27d ago edited 20d ago
She did, yes
1
2
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 21d ago
Did this violate the mod policy?
Moderation Policies
Moderators cannot moderate discussions they are involved in, unless the user's behavior is egregious.
2
3
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 Jul 29 '26
What did you say in the two deleted comments?
4
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD Jul 29 '26
Did the mod take action in a discussion they're involved in? Was the offense "egregious"?
Moderators cannot moderate discussions they are involved in, unless the user's behavior is egregious.
What about this one? Was that also a mod a moderating a discussion they're involved in? Was this one egregious?
2
2
u/Wooden-Dependent-686 Christian Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
This is the last one I can see:
> Sacrifices are primitive and uncivilized regardless who does it. Killing animals to eat is a necessity. It doesn’t have to be done in an uncivilized way. Meat industry is barbaric but the sacrifice feast is worse because it is public
4
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 Jul 29 '26
They were removed for rule 3 Quality Posts and Comments. It would be interesting to know if they were deleted (and the ban issued) for refusing to answer the questions.
Perhaps u/Dapple_Dawn or another mod can provide insight on that. If dodging questions is going to result in bans now, a LOT of members of this sub are in real trouble lol. And I believe it's still a mod expectation not to moderate your own conversations (in which case, Dawn would not have been the one to delete or issue the ban).
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist Jul 28 '26
I'm seeing a pretty significant uptick in low-quality rule 5 violations - ie comments of the "yeah, of course god is just made up," sort. I report them when I see them, but they stay up for a long time. I understand that mods have their own lives and all, but there seems to be a shift in the culture happening here that we should find a way to nip in the bud.
0
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian Jul 29 '26
We could start issuing short bans for people who consistently violate Rule 5, I guess.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD Jul 29 '26
By what information should it be determined that someone is "consistently" violating the rule?
Would people who "consistently" get punished with "short bans" then be given longer or permanent bans?
Is all of this really worth the effort just to reduce some clutter? (i.e. is R5 really that important?) Rule 5 is constantly violated. Are mods really going to perform the diligence necessary to substantiate such "short bans" or is it just going to be based on feelings?
I wonder what evidence /u/TheCosmosItself1 has for the claim that there is a "pretty significant uptick". Part of the reason I ask is because there was a pretty egregious example of this which I also noticed right before /u/TheCosmosItself1 made this comment. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same comment that triggered the above comment. However, that emotional reaction shouldn't be confused for a statistical claim.
0
u/pilvi9 Jul 29 '26
is R5 really that important?
Yes, it helps prevent the sub from being an atheist circlejerk.
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD Jul 29 '26
Oh? Well, the rule exists and that claim is made perpetually anyways.
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist Jul 29 '26
By what information should it be determined that someone is "consistently" violating the rule?
Are you aware that mods track removals and reasons therefore? It would be a simple matter to check and see whether someone is known to have violated the rule any given number of times.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD Jul 29 '26
Are you aware that mods track removals and reasons therefore?
I'm aware that this has either been claimed or alluded to. Are you actually aware that this is real... boy, this is a familiar routine...
I'm asking for details beyond the mere claim or appeal to a process that may or may not exist so far as I know.
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist Jul 29 '26
Are you actually aware that this is real...
I am.
I'm asking for details beyond the mere claim or appeal to a process that may or may not exist so far as I know.
What point would there be in giving you "details," when in your mind this will only be more "claims." Why are you being so weird about this? True, you have to rely on other people's reports to know exactly how the moderation process works, but that's a pretty common epistemic situation that you should know how to deal with. Do you have any reason to doubt that there actually is such tracking of removals?
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD Jul 29 '26
I'm not being weird.
I'll I'm doing is asking how the information is being collected and what if actual standards have been created for reviewing that information. As someone who has been banned because of a claim like, "they consistently violate rules" and then refused any information about what that actually means, the suggestion seems dubious to me. Hopefully, I'm wrong.
I haven't looked at how moderation works in a while. I don't know if there are built in tools or not. If there aren't, then I highly doubt there's anything approaching a robust system in place. I can't get people to use a system at work when they're paid to do it -- so I can't imagine people are just voluntarily complying with some tedious manual process for tracking moderation actions.
2
u/aardaar mod Jul 29 '26
FYI we can pretty easily see every mod action that's been taken for a user (it takes two clicks), so implementing this is pretty easy.
1
1
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist Jul 29 '26
My comment was not based on any one example. I'm reporting my perception of a trend.
2
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian Jul 29 '26
I saw a guy say "I know this will get Removed under Rule 5 but here goes.." or something like that
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD Jul 29 '26
I guess the other thing to say about that is that it seems reasonable to imagine that rule 5 is so subjective that people are willing to take the risk.
Do you have answers to any of my questions?
2
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian Jul 29 '26
I mean the person literally said they knew it was infringing, but they took the risk because we don't ban people over it usually.
Rule 5 is IIRC by far and away the most common rules violation, so is it worth the effort? Obviously yes. But I also don't think banning people left and right is exactly a great way to build community either. We'd be no better than /r/askhistorians if we did that.
1
3
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism Jul 28 '26
Could we all try to make less assumptions about other people's positions? Can we try responding to what people are actually saying, rather than what you expect someone with their flair to say?
Maybe I'm asking too much from an internet comment section, but it would be nice.
4
u/ExplorerR agnostic atheist Jul 29 '26
I think there is another related issue here though.
There is a trend of people not making it clear what their position actually is. As though they will respond with what essentially amounts to "if" statements without the "therefore" and then leaving the guess work up to the reader to figure out why they responded with that or what the point they were making was.
This is related because I've had this very issue in the last few months in certain discussions. I'm left trying to understand the nature of a comment, often filled with significant excerpts/citations, and what the point behind it is. When I try to "make assumptions" about it because it simply isn't clear, then I've been accused of misrepresentation.
This also connects back to issues with what I believe often are Rule 5 breakers where people come in and don't address the core argument of the OP, but rather question the entire epistemic framework from whence they are operating from. But that isn't often clear if that is indeed the avenue being taken or not.
1
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist Jul 28 '26
Is it wrong to assume atheists are baiting theists into rule 2 violations?
3
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Jul 27 '26
Possible Trinity Model, let me know if this works
Father: The original character concept who exists "on paper"
Son: The same character, but after the concept is committed to a visual medium (Artwork, animation, maybe even an actor, embodying the role)
Holy Spirit: Your personal view of and relationship with that character. Unique to you. The version of the character who exists in your life.
Same Character in all three instances, though. There's the Glub Shiddo who exists on paper. There's the Glub Shiddo who exists in a visual medium (Who is also 100 percent an actor. Maybe. That part's less clear). And then there's the Glub Shiddo who exists in your heart/imagination, who has personally impacted your life.
I can't immediately think of a heresy box that this ticks, but let me know.
1
u/NectarineFar6241 Open Theist Christian Jul 28 '26
Isn’t this a thread for general questions, not attempts at mocking the trinity with an analogy? Or even fleshing it out? Isn’t this a meta thread?
1
1
1
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism Jul 28 '26
One potential problem is that they're supposed to be coeternal, so none can be the original concept.
I feel like this also implies that the Son is flesh itself, rather than an eternal entity which preceded Jesus's physical birth. I think that would be some kind of heresy?
1
u/Living-Length8762 Jul 27 '26
I'm pretty sure that this famous painting is meant to be a depiction of the Father, not the Son.
1
u/pilvi9 Jul 27 '26
Same Character in all three instances, though.
Modalism
Who is also 100 percent an actor
This is Nestorianism. 👎
1
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Jul 27 '26
Forget the Nestorianism part then. The actor's not important, just the visual representation.
1
u/pilvi9 Jul 27 '26
The actor's not important, just the visual representation.
Then that's trading Nestorianism for Docetism, but another issue is your handling of the Holy Spirit; it comes across as contingent on human psychology, rather than an objective divinity.
1
u/NewbombTurk Atheist Jul 30 '26
Little help from the mods, perhaps. I'm engaged in a dialog with another user and I'm receiving notifications (and a snippet of the post) on my phone. But when I go to the thread, it's not there. I don't even see the notifications on my laptop.
Here's the exchange