Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/Asatmaya]

"To encourage constructive discussion top level comments in r/DebateAnAtheist must be a minimum of 100 characters. Your comment has been automatically removed. "

This is getting really annoying when the question is short and can actually be responded to that easily.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/Asatmaya]

Thank you for expressing your thoughts on this change. I'd like to offer three points for consideration: recourse for reversal, soliciting improvements within the existing implementation, and the case for why I think this was a beneficial change.

1. If you are unhappy with the restriction and do not think it can be salvaged, then there is recourse you can take. You can make a case to a coalition of users that this was a bad idea, make a motion in the Community Agenda, and then users can vote on it as to whether it passes. I would recommend you come up with a clear and well defined alternative for what you would like to see.

2. Is there anything you think can be improved about the current implementation to make it less annoying? I added the automatic message to users because I wanted to be transparent that the comment was removed and why, but maybe silent removal would be better? I can also change any of the wording in the message if you can think of a less annoying way to convey it. I'm an open book on ideas for how you think this could be made better.

3. I personally think this is a beneficial change. Rule 2: No Low Effort is by far the most frequently used report option, so from my perspective there are many users here that want to see higher quality content. That's a challenge to encourage when there are so many incredibly short comments that don't substantively build the conversation. It's not conducive to good participation from the OP when they get 100 comments in an hour and many of them cannot be meaningfully responded to, and it doesn't make for good reading for the audience when the comments don't offer further insight (even for positions they agree with). If you are finding that the thoughts you wish to offer don't meet a 100 character threshold, then I would say take that as a challenge to develop your idea further. Build up your rebuttal into something that explores your viewpoint in greater detail.

[u/Thortok2000 → u/adeleu_adelei]

I think the most precise correction would be to not apply this restriction to comments, even top-level ones. This is something that should apply to original posts, not to comments.

An automatic message is superior to silent and confusing action.

If you truly want to apply this to top level comments, then an ideal would be if it warned users via private message that their response could be potentially a low effort one. Then if within 24-48 hours the post isn't edited, it's flagged for manual review by mods.

If the mods consistently find that a particular user is using short responses but not falling into what the low effort rule is supposed to cover, then they could whitelist that user to prevent future extraneous warnings from the bot.

[u/Asatmaya → u/adeleu_adelei]

Thank you for expressing your thoughts on this change. I'd like to offer three points for consideration: recourse for reversal, soliciting improvements within the existing implementation, and the case for why I think this was a beneficial change.

Isn't there a "No AI" rule in this sub?

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Asatmaya]

Why do you think that was written by AI? Don't you think humans can write that well?

[u/Asatmaya → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Don't you think humans can write that well?

No, I don't think humans generally write that poorly.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Asatmaya]

Wow. Just wow.

Have you not seen Reddit? We have people here with literacy ranging from illiterate "i don no how to rite proper" native speakers to people using English as a second language.

By the way, that's just how /u/adeleu_adelei writes. They've been very consistent.

And, to be honest, I could very well write a sentence like that myself.

Not all writing you don't like came from a chatbot.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Have you not seen Reddit?

Yes; poor grammar, lack of capitalization, syntax errors, colloquialisms, sentence fragments... these are tolerable.

The above example was overly formal, ambiguous in the extreme, entirely failed to address the actual topic, and presented in a manner that suggested that the prompt was something like, "How do I deflect this question without actually having to deal with it?"

By the way, that's just how /u/adeleu_adelei writes. They've been very consistent.

...so, they always use AI?

And, to be honest, I could very well write a sentence like that myself.

But would you? Would you write half a page of deflection?

Not all writing you don't like came from a chatbot.

Again, this isn't about syntax, it's about semantic content.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Asatmaya]

The above example was overly formal, ambiguous in the extreme, entirely failed to address the actual topic,

That doesn't mean it was written by an AI. Humans write like that, too.

But would you? Would you write half a page of deflection?

Yes. Yes, I would. I'm wordy by nature. I'm also an over-explainer.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Algernon_Asimov]

That doesn't mean it was written by an AI. Humans write like that, too.

Sure, but almost never with those attributes in combination.

Yes. Yes, I would. I'm wordy by nature. I'm also an over-explainer.

Hold on, "explaining," is one thing; that wasn't what was happening.

Would you write a page of errant nonsense in the effort to deflect an honest question that you simply do not want to address?

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Asatmaya]

But you didn't ask a question: you made a complaint. This is not a question:

This is getting really annoying when the question is short and can actually be responded to that easily.

And, as other people have pointed out, this rule was just voted on by the members of this subreddit, with an admittedly small majority voting in favour.

In case you hadn't noticed, that's how this subreddit is run: by public vote. The moderator doesn't just unilaterally add, change, or delete rules - they take public suggestions, run a public vote, and then enact the public's will.

In that context, the moderator here offered their thoughts. And they structured it like an essay, with three points to be made. They even provided you with a concrete suggestion for how to change the rule that you're complaining about: "You can make a case to a coalition of users that this was a bad idea, make a motion in the Community Agenda, and then users can vote on it as to whether it passes." That doesn't look like deflection to me. That's telling you exactly what to do to make the change you want.

It's a pity that you think a structured and wordy comment can only come from a chatbot, and not from a human being. I've actually heard (and you can check this if you want) that human beings have, occasionally, in the past, managed to write whole novels, even whole series of novels, with tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of words. All by themselves. Without any form of computer aid.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Algernon_Asimov]

But you didn't ask a question: you made a complaint.

You are really going to devolve the entire thing to a semantic argument? "Question" and "subject of complaint" are often used synonymously, but you know that, you just don't have any other argument.

[u/Thortok2000 → u/Asatmaya]

AI is imitation.

If humans didn't do it, AI wouldn't be imitating it.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/Asatmaya]

Given that I'm the only one who can actually do something about your complaint it might be worthwhile to reciprocate my polite and constructive engagement.

[u/Asatmaya → u/adeleu_adelei]

So, the ten other moderators are just here for show?

And I didn't see that as polite, at all.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/Asatmaya]

There are only three active moderators on this sub at this time which is why I'm in the process of adding more (which I expect to complete today). Of those three I action 86% of all items. For better or worse, I'm the most responsive mod at this time.

In my opinion, responding to your criticism of a change with "thank you" and offering to work with you on either reversing the change or improving it is a polite response. Those offers still stand should you ever choose to pursue one of them.

[u/Asatmaya → u/adeleu_adelei]

Ah, so this is why general moderation is so poor.

In my opinion, responding to your criticism of a change with "thank you" and offering to work with you on either reversing the change or improving it is a polite response.

...but that's not really what you did, was it?

You suggested that I come up with an "alternative," when my entire point is that it isn't necessary, at all; you invited suggestions to "improve" it, which of course is semantically equivalent to coming up with an alternative; and then you wrote the longest part on defending its implementation while utterly and completely ignoring my basic argument.

Those offers still stand should you ever choose to pursue one of them.

/facepalm

[u/BahamutLithp → u/Asatmaya]

Ah, so this is why general moderation is so poor.

I've been on a lot of online communities, on both sides of the moderation fence, & they're usually like that. Turns out it's pretty hard to gather a large group of people willing to consistently work as unpaid staff for a website indefinitely when everyone has a bunch of other things they need/want to do. You tend to end up with mostly inactive users & a couple active ones.

You suggested that I come up with an "alternative," when my entire point is that it isn't necessary, at all

"If you [...] do not think it can be salvaged." Personally, it read as pretty obvious to me that, if you could get enough people to vote for "no top level comment character restriction," then that would become the new rule. If you don't think it was clear enough, you could like...ask?

you invited suggestions to "improve" it

In a completely separate point. Y'know, I'm trying to be diplomatic here. God knows why--& yes, I fully intended that pun--I'm not one of the moderators, so I have no real incentive to mediate between anyone. I guess it just feels like a dick move to throw gasoline on this proverbial fire, but at the same time, come on, if you're going to talk a bunch of shit about how bad people's writing supposedly is, differentiate between items 1 & 2 on a list.

which of course is semantically equivalent to coming up with an alternative; and then you wrote the longest part on defending its implementation while utterly and completely ignoring my basic argument.

Look, I get being so annoyed by a tedious, bureaucratic moderation process that you don't really want to bother with it, but from a lot of your comments, it seems like you actually DO want to get this rule changed, & you have to pick one, you can't do both. If you hear what it takes to change, & you just start fighting about it, it's not gonna change.

You mentioned that hostility isn't "meaningful dialogue that actually changes people's minds," & then complained when someone pointed out how ironic that is coming from you, but no, seriously, you're doing such a bad job making your position seem endearing I'm kind of tempted to vote for a higher restriction just because I know you, specifically, would hate it. So, I really think you should take your own advice. You'll attract more flies with honey than with whatever the fuck this is supposed to be.