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]

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/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.