Reddit: Reconsidering the r/EndFPTP Rules
-
Check out this post on Reddit.
Comment and discuss. The proposal is to change rule #3 from "Do NOT bash alternatives to FPTP" to "Keep criticisms constructive and keep claims factual".
https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/124861h/reconsidering_the_endfptp_rules/ -
Moved from Current Events by
SaraWolk
-
@sarawolk I'm fine with that wording. (as I said in a different thread, when 3 people disagreed with me about any such rule, and I edited it out of my proposal)
There is an issue, though, with the "keep claims factual" idea. There are many in this field that will regularly demand that their view is the one and only correct one. I've seen it a lot. So debating "factual" and for that matter "constructive" can be tricky. Is it factual that IRV is an improvement over Plurality? I tend to think it is, but there are those that disagree.
I remember back in the day a particular well-known and prolific member of the voting theory community (who doesn't participate in this forum and has toned down his approach in the decade since) would berate anyone who didn't agree with the FACT that score voting was objectively the best system because it produced the best utilitarian results according to some way of directly measuring it, and therefore by definition means the most happiness and therefore, it's best. By definition. Not an opinion, fact. He literally drove me off from the community for years. He started almost all of his replies with "Wrong."
That's what I think is the problem that comes up time to time. You can call it partisanship, or negative politics, or whatever. Or just being too strident.
Regardless, I think there is probably no need for specific wording about that, but moderators would simply need to have good judgement.
Any code of conduct is subject to interpretation. I think my posts are far from inflammatory, but you and @Sass have disagreed. (jeez, I was offering significant time and effort to the forum, noted that the forum was nearly a ghost town, and that with Jack departing it could potentially go offline, and advocated for running the forum democratically with every decision I'd make. That's inflammatory? Sorry I don't get that.)
Here is a thread where things got ugly, around that issue, with it devolving into personal attacks ("bullshit!" "denial isn't a river in egypt", "big fucking deal!" "this is so stupid" etc).
https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/256/new-method-i-think-hare-squared/12 -
@rob The thread you linked is a great example. (I just skimmed a small portion of it.)
Sidenote: The Reddit post is about the Reddit Rules. We already have a code of conduct here that fills the same purpose, though with a lot more specifics, but in any case, the thread is relevant for introspection on either so I cross-posted it here.
The question is which rules, if enforced, would have made that Forum conversation more productive? I find the debate itself on Burlington potentially constructive, but the tone and quotes you cited break Reddit's Rule #1 and don't comply with our Code of Conduct either.
I agree with you that some well done moderation there would have likely kept @Andy-Dienes and others more engaged and made them feel more respected.
-
@sarawolk said in Reddit: Reconsidering the r/EndFPTP Rules:
I agree with you that some well done moderation there would have likely kept @Andy-Dienes and others more engaged and made them feel more respected.
Well if you read the thread you'll see there was moderation, by me. I jumped in and smoothed things out. When I called rbj out for being aggressive and told him why it's not ok, he said "Yes. You are exactly correct, @rob."
I've been doing a fair amount of that here, even though I am not in any official sense a moderator. I've had admin power for some time, and here and there use it to deal with spammers and such. But mostly, I just jumping in as a regular user when someone goes out of line and trying to bring it back.
In the course of the thread above (which you really should read if you want to know how I handle moderation here), rb-j "doxxed" Andy by posting screenshots showing proof that Andy had used some particular identity at Reddit that he doesn't use now. Or something like that. Doxxing. I dealt with that like this:
I thought that was moderated about as well as it could have been, although I probably would have DM'd rbj right off the bat if I felt like I was an official moderator. RBJ is very cantankerous (he's always getting banned at EndFPTP and other places and seems proud of it), but he is also really smart and makes good contributions on the legislative side.
I'm curious how you think moderation should be done. Clear rules are nice to have, but there are always gray areas. More importantly, you need someone with good judgement to enforce them in a way that doesn't unnecessarily drive people away. Would you disagree with any of that?
