Here is the Reddit group I was thinking of: https://www.reddit.com/...ngemyview/wiki/rules

and here are their rules:

Submission RulesRule A
Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required)
Why an Original Poster (OP) holds a particular view is an incredibly important thing for commenters to know if they are going to try and convince the OP that they should hold a different view. By not explaining why you hold a particular view, you are going to find yourself giving the same explanation to every commenter over and over again. We’ve found that it is better to get this out of the way upfront, and to edit the post periodically with answers to the most common questions to save everyone time and effort. The reason that we require 500 characters is that we’ve found that this is the minimum amount of explanation the average post needs to launch a productive discussion. Some posts may be able to get away with less than that but they are few and far between, and they are nearly always made better posts with more explanation.
500 characters isn’t all that much - here is what 500 characters looks like:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenita.

Indicators of Rule A Violations

• 
  
  • The 500+ characters of your post need to be an explanation of your view in your own words. While we encourage submitters to use quotations and citations, they do not count towards the character requirement; we want to know what you believe, not what someone else does.
• 
  
  • If you find that many different commenters are asking you the same question about your view, that's a strong indication that the answer to that question should have been included in your original explanation. You can (and should) edit your original post to include that information.
• 
  
  • We don't judge the quality of the arguments posted on CMV, but we will remove submissions which are incoherent, unreadable, or so convoluted that they can't be easily understood.
• 
  
  • Bypassing the character requirement with any form of “filler text” will result in your submission being removed.

Rule B
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing.
The purpose of CMV is for the OP and responders to have an exchange of ideas in an effort to change the view of the OP. If you don’t hold the view, however, then it is impossible to determine if that view has been changed.

• 
  A submission cannot be made on behalf of others...
  
  • Allowing OPs to submit views on behalf of other people would put an impossible burden on them to divine what another person might think. The only way for you to really know if a comment has changed your view is if you can personally evaluate the argument and decide if your view was changed.
  • Historically, OPs posting for others would reply to strong arguments with, “That is what I told them, but they don’t get it!” which doesn’t help bring the discussion to closure.
    
  • If your friend holds a view, encourage them to make an account rather than try to argue on their behalf.
• 
  ...as "devil's advocate...
  
  • Historically, allowing OPs to post views that they don’t actually hold allowed them to use CMV to just fish for better arguments for conversations, assignments or debates. While this isn’t necessarily bad, that is not what we are here for - we are here to help change people’s minds, not win their arguments for them.
  • Even when done in good faith or in a genuine attempt to gain good arguments for a view that they hold, an OP that doesn’t hold a belief can never really have that belief changed so we only allow views that you personally believe to be true or right.
  • Commenters (non-OP) are more than allowed to argue views they do not personally hold in responses.
• 
  ...as any entity other than yourself...
  
  • This prohibits OPs from submitting “in character” or role-playing. Since the OP is not the character in question, it is not possible for them to know what actually change a character’s mind. The only mind you know is your own, so it is the only one you can speak to.
• 
  ....or to soapbox.
  
  • Your submission and subsequent explanations should not aim to convince others, spread your ideas, advocate for a cause, or otherwise “soapbox” in any way. While we do not require that our Original Posters (OPs) want to have their view changed or that they can articulate any doubts they have about their view, we do require that they be open to hearing arguments against that view. They must be willing to seek further understanding for those who disagree with them, and they must enter with the acceptance that their view may be flawed. A good OP must have the mindset that they might be wrong and be genuinely open to exploring that possibility.
  • To that end, OPs must act in a way that demonstrates that willingness. Many people who are soapboxing fall back on claiming that they are "willing to change their view if they see the right argument", but that is not sufficient. The moderators do not have access to their internal mental state, but only to what they see in the post and comments.

Indicators of Rule B Violations
Enforcing this rule requires subjective evaluation of the post by the moderators, which can only be made based on observable behavior. When evaluating this rule, the moderators looks for specific indicators of unwillingness, including but not limited to:

• 
  
  • Cherry-picking weaker arguments to shoot down, while ignoring stronger and more persuasive arguments (including abandoning an exchange that isn’t going your way).
• 
  
  • Dismissing a response by merely pointing out some superficial and partial imperfection, instead of comprehensively refuting its substantive parts, or making concession that it has merit and giving deltas where appropriate.
• 
  
  • Arbitrarily limiting the lines of argument discussed, or demanding impossible/highly unreasonable evidence as the only means to change the view (e.g. that new studies be done or that negatives be affirmatively proven).
• 
  
  • Making ad hoc patches to the original view (without awarding deltas and updating their post accordingly), or rejecting relevant counter arguments for being "unimportant" or "off-topic".
• 
  
  • Reiterating OP’s viewpoints to others (beyond the degree necessary to reply to overlapping responses), while not exploring new grounds offered by others (such as asking genuine follow up questions to gain more insight of an angle).
• 
  
  • Writing the view like a persuasive essay, "rant", or call to action (evidence include explicit statements of intent to change people's' minds, external links to essays by the OP, or requests for advice in advocacy groups/forums supporting the view).

Common Rebuttals to Rule B Removals
When posts are removed for Rule B violations, many of the same justifications are provided. These are listed below, along with why the moderators do not find them compelling arguments. Please review these before appealing a Rule B removal; rehashing any of these arguments as a part of that appeal will only result in the moderators asking you to review this guidance:

• I am open to changing my view.
  
  • To be blunt, saying it doesn't make it so. If your submission was removed as a Rule B violation, it's because multiple moderators agreed that you weren't acting open-minded.
  • If you want to convince us you are open to other opinions, show us evidence of it - provide us links to exchanges where you were working with other users and making progress toward a change of view.
• I just haven't seen a good enough argument/the evidence I want yet.
  
  • Any rational person will be open to changing any view if presented with undeniable proof that it's wrong. That degree of "open-mindedness" isn't sufficient to satisfy Rule B.
  • On a basic level, there has to be a realistic chance of your view changing for a CMV submission to function. If you're requiring an unrealistically high standard of evidence to even consider a shift in perspective, then you're violating Rule B.
• Of course I haven't been convinced, here are all the reasons I'm right
  
  • Your view may indeed be correct; we take no position on that because Rule B isn't about that. Rule B is about your openness to making a change.
  • On any complex issue it should at least be possible to recognize some aspect of the other side which broadens your perspective, even if your core belief is well-justified.
  • In the improbable event that you're completely right about everything, you don't belong on CMV.

Rule C
Submission titles must adequately sum up your view and include "CMV:" at the beginning.
People reading from their front page will know immediately which subreddit the post is from. This is vital, as there is a certain level of respect in CMV that may not be present in other places. If someone is conveying their controversial opinion without including the recognized "CMV" acronym, people may assume this is a closed-minded individual trying to stir controversy. While this can still be present in our subreddit, the "CMV" reminds users to treat this OP with respect and open-mindedness in order to provide new perspectives. Having no acronym may cause some people to jump the gun without realizing which subreddit they're in. Similarly, we feel there is a big difference between "I believe this" and "CMV: I believe this" for setting the tone. At a first glance, one seems to be a closed case and the other is up for discussion. This is important for first impressions on the front page.
Indicators of Rule C Violations

• 
  
  • Titles are questions, not statements. For example, you should write "CMV: Trix are just for kids", not "CMV: Are Trix just for kids?"
• 
  
  • While not strictly prohibited, posts that use inflammatory language or all caps are discouraged because they do not inspire confidence that the OP is here to have their view changed. We are not a G-rated forum and adult language is permissible, but overtly hostile submissions may be seen as indications that the OP is violating the rules on openness to change and be removed for that reason.
• 
  
  • Titles should also avoid inflammatory language or all caps whenever possible. “CMV: I don’t have an anger problem” sets a very different tone than, “CMV: I DON’T HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM YOU JERKS!”

Posts Containing Spoilers
If, and only if, your title contains spoilers for any popular media, please keep the title as vague as you can out of respect to others reading the thread that may not know the spoiler. “CMV: About the ending of Hamlet” allows users to decide if they want the ending spoiled without actually spoiling it; “CMV: Hamlet should not have killed his uncle” doesn’t give them that option.
Spoilers are allowed in the body of posts, so long you indicate the post will contain spoilers; we suggest appending your title with [Spoilers] tag to make this clear.
Rule D
Posts cannot express a neutral stance, suggest harm against a specific person, be self-promotional, or discuss this subreddit (visit r/ideasforcmvinstead)
Over the years, we have found that certain types (not topics) of posts just don’t lend themselves well to the CMV structure and result in very poor discussions. For that reason, we have decided not to allow these types of posts on CMV for purely practical reasons.
We do not remove posts based on content or perceived offensiveness. If your post was removed for violating this rule, it is because the format just doesn’t work well for CMV and not because we are censoring any view point.
Indicators of Rule D Violations

• 
  Neutral Posts: Views that do not take a stance
  
  • Neutral posts are prohibited because we feel like they would only open up discussion for the most popular opinion. In order for people to argue the other side of a view with you, they have to know what that other side is first. Saying, “I believe that X is correct” gives people something to react to; saying “I don’t know if X or Y is correct” does not.
• 
  Personal Harm: Views relating to your life or personal situation are allowed so long as they can't reasonably lead to a dangerous outcome.
  
  • An obvious example, while unlikely, would be "CMV: My life IS worth living". This would hopefully be ignored anyway, but Rule 1 would mean some users might try and convince you that it isn't worth it.
  • A less obvious example - since it's something we'd want you to change your view on - would be "CMV: My life ISN'T worth living". The reason being that commenters might not know how to deal with this situation and inadvertently make it worse, which is a negative experience for everyone involved. When someone subscribes to CMV, they aren't signing up to deal with such a situation. Those subscribing to r/SuicideWatch, however, do expect such posts and we'd therefore recommend you visit there instead - and check out their resources if you are dealing with a crisis.
  • Another example would be both "CMV: I SHOULD leave my abusive partner" and "CMV: I SHOULDN'T leave my abusive partner". These posts are problematic because arguments by commenters or the OP would advocate a dangerous position.
  • This part of the rule also prohibits posts that could personally endanger a specific living individual, e.g. posting about why a public figure should be assassinated. Abstract discussions about the merits of such actions, discussions about the application of law (e.g. the death penalty or other legal punishment) or government/military action, and/or discussions about past actions or historical people remain permissible.
  • We must stress that this rule does not apply to groups of people or general views that you believe indirectly endangers you or your way of life. However, "calls for violence" are against reddit's site policy.
• 
  Self-Promotion: Views that exist only to promote or sell
  
  • If we believe your post was made to promote or advertise something (i.e. YouTube channel, blog, book, etc.), we will remove the post. We will also remove the post if it appears that your goal is advocacy of a specific cause or action (e.g. trying to get users to sign a petition or brigade a website).
  • Links to blogs, YouTube channels and other media that you do not personally control are allowed, providing that the post still satisfies Rule A. Linking to blogs, YouTube channels or other media that you own or control in comments are similarly allowed, providing the comment still satisfies Rule 5.
• 
  Meta-Topics: Views about CMV itself
  
  • We aren't opposed to criticism or suggestions, but we've disallowed "meta" posts from the main site because the format of CMV doesn't suit a genuine suggestion, since OP might not be interested in debating it (which doesn't reduce its potential utility) and the top level comments would have to criticise it in some way, which would make moderator responses difficult.
  • To this end, we have set up an entire sub, r/ideasforcmv, to handle all of our meta discussions. Please note that r/ideasforcmv has a different set of rules, so please review the moderation standards before posting there.

Rule E
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to do so within 3 hours after posting
CMV is about conversation between people who believe different things. The Original Poster (OP) needs to be available to answer questions, provide clarification, evaluate arguments and provide responses as part of a back-and-forth between them and the people in the discussion. If someone takes the time to respond to your post, it is only fair that you be there to read it and respond yourself.
Indicators of Rule E Violations

• 
  No responses from the OP in 3 hours
  
  • For the super popular submissions that get a disproportionate amount of attention, a three (3) hour limit is enough to stop the submission in its tracks if OP is unresponsive.
    
  • This gives plenty of time for responders to see the thread and start engaging with OP. Without a doubt there should be at least a few users in the thread. If we wait any longer, then new users who see it and comment will be wasting their time responding to an OP who isn't there.
  • On the off chance that nobody responds to OP (really, really rare), we will be lenient on the timeframe because obviously OP needs someone to respond to for it to be a conversation. Similarly, if you only receive a few low-effort responses (e.g. "You spelled X wrong" or "It was actually 1990, not 1991") within 3 hours after posting, we won't hold it against you for not responding.
  • If you become available to respond after your post has been removed, it can be reinstated by messaging the moderators. You should only make this request if you can participate within three hours of the reapproval request. Sometimes, it is more beneficial to create a new thread, especially if the original had low participation and a considerable amount of time has passed.
• 
  Low effort responses from the OP
  
  • A small number of one line responses that don't address the arguments that people are making will still result in removal.
  • Additionally, OPs who exclusively respond to people agreeing with them doesn't really count as conversation. You need to actually engage with people who are countering your argument, not look for people who agree with you and bolster your own. Furthermore, frivolous responses (e.g. saying "it's all good" in response to all comments) are not a "conversation".

Comment RulesRule 1

• 
  "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments."
  
  • Before we had this rule, /r/changemyview often became indistinguishable from what /r/reinforcemyview would be like if it had any posts, and OPs would treat us like /r/offmychest. Think of this as the rule that gives /r/changemyview a reason to exist at all, because without it we found threads turning into circlejerks where replies that agreed with the OP would be upvoted to the top of the pile and drown out interesting arguments that--at the very least--made you think about popular topics in a different light. Without Rule 1, /r/changemyview would be superfluous.
  • /r/changemyview is here to offer a particular mode of discussion for OPs that want it. If you want to agree with the OP, consider doing it in a reply to another comment, or send the OP a private message.
  • If you are the OP, don't reply directly to your own post in order to expand your argument or update readers – this can derail the flow of discussion in the comment section. Please edit your original post to include this information instead (as mentioned in Rule A).
• 
  Top level comments that are allowed under rule 1:
  
  • One that challenges at least one material part of the view, no matter how minor (provided not being a "foot in door" technique - see below).
  • One that challenges OP's reasoning, if not OP's conclusion.
  • One that provides alternate reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion, accompanied by a challenge to OP's own reasoning.
    
    • Example: OP argues "Gay marriage should be legal due to X" and the responses is "Gay marriage should be legal due to Y, and X is a bad reason because...".
• 
  Top level comments that are against rule 1:
  
  • One that is entirely dedicated to supporting or merely restating the view or some part of it
  • One that positively expands the view, while leaving the original view intact. Generally comments that argue OP's suggestions "don't go far enough" are against rule 1, unless OP specifically imposes a limit, and the comment challenges that limit.
    
    • Example: OP argues "Gay marriage should be legal" and the response is "You're wrong, because gay marriage and polygamy should both be legal".
      
      • For similar reasons, the response "You're wrong, the government should outlaw marriage entirely because then gay people could form a union" is also against rule 1. See also the "foot in door" technique below.
  • One that is irrelevant to the view
    
    • Example: OP claims to be in favor of fascism. A top-level response that argues against communism (without somehow tying it to fascism explicitly) would violate Rule 1, unless OP actually made some claim about communism.
  • One that merely provides alternate reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion, without challenging OP's reasoning.
    
    • Example: OP argues "Gay marriage should be legal due to X" and the responses is "Gay marriage should be legal due to Y"
  • One that predominantly supports the view, with one's own active input, while correcting some minor aspect, or pretending to ask a clarifying question, in order to pay lip service to rule 1, for the purpose that the arguments in favor of the view can stay. ("foot in door" technique)
    
    • Example 1: If OP argues "Andre the Giant was right; nobody should start a land war in Asia", the response "Actually, Vizzini said that. Also, here is a laundry list of reasons why we still shouldn't start a land war in Asia" would violate Rule 1
      
      • But "Actually, Vizzini said that." (with more wording to avoid low effort - see rule 5) is acceptable on its own.
    • Example 2: "Why would you ever want your mind changed about this? I feel your view is pretty solid..."
  • Questions that are not clarifying and of no appreciable aid in facilitating a view change.
    
    • A mere "why do you want your view changed?" is insufficient to satisfy rule 1 on its own, as the commenter can easily follow up with arguments in favor of OP once OP replies.
• 
  Rule 1's operation does not rest on an impressionistic determination of whether OP's view is traditionally "left/right wing" and whether the comment tries to steer OP's view in a more "left/right wing" direction. The immediate contents of OP's view and the comment and the discrepancy between are what matters.
  

Rule 2

• 
  "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid."
  
  • Would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they're sick? Would you enter an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk? Would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long-haired hippies?
  • Imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of issue, to try and understand different perspectives, and do so without fear of being shamed. This subreddit is intended to be that place. If you think that a person's opinion is vile, and you're insulting them in Change My View, then you're being unproductive. This is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views can come to work it out. (Here's some more info on controversial threads).
  • A lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner. Being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate. Don't like the view? Want to change it? What do you think is more likely to do that - being polite and civil, or rude and hostile? If anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.
  • The CMV moderators do not remove posts or comments for advocating or criticizing any view or opinion, no matter how political or controversial. If your comment was removed for a Rule 2 violation, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument". Some examples of this are known as ad hominem, however, to be precise, you're not allowed to be rude or hostile to a user even if your hostility is also addressed to their argument.
  • "They started it" is not an excuse to break Rule 2. If someone is being rude/hostile to you, report the comment. Retaliatory comments (i.e. being rude/hostile to another user because they were rude/hostile to you first) will be removed and the violating user will receive a warning. No exceptions.
  • "But it was true" isn't an excuse either. We prohibit insults even if you think they're accurate. Insulting other users does not lead to views being changed and just results in unproductive arguments.
  • Attacks on public figures/institutions/categories of people are fair game and you can use whatever language you wish (this is not a G-rated sub), but other users and public figures who are participating as users in this sub are off limits.
  • While irony is an important persuasive tool, your comment may be removed if is sufficiently sarcastic to also constitute an attack on the user.
  • A very common reason that comments are removed is implying or stating that someone "lacks reading comprehension" (or is failing to use it). To be clear, this (and other forms of passive or active condescension) are prohibited by Rule 2.
  • We deliberately avoid removing posts and comments if the only reason is that the view presented is offensive or controversial itself. We also can't remove comments just because the argument is made badly, is inaccurate, or contains logical fallacies. Doing otherwise would suppose that we were somehow the ultimate arbiters of truth or correctness, which we aren't. If you're rude and hostile to someone arguing that it's okay to eat babies, but they're otherwise being civil, then much as it pains us, we'd have to remove your comment and not theirs. The goal of this sub is to have you, the user, point out the problems with another user's comments. The mods are only empowered to break up verbal fistfights.
  • We will reinstate comments if you edit them to "attack the argument, not the person" and send a message to the mods to alert us to the changes.
  • We are somewhat more flexible about rudeness towards someone's argument rather than their character. However, don't use narrow semantic distinctions to try to dodge Rule 2. Calling an argument "moronic" is effectively calling the person making it a moron, in part because arguments themselves don't have intelligence, and therefore can't even be "moronic"... only the arguer can be. An argument can be called fallacious or incorrect, but it can't be called stupid.
  • Variations of rude comments like "If you don't agree with me you are stupid" or "Only a retard would voice an opinion like yours." will be counted as rule 2 violations. Constructing a hypothetical argument where they have to agree with you or be bad is against the spirit of changemyview. Different perspectives should be celebrated, and if those perspectives are wrong they should be challenged on factual grounds not with attacks on people as personal attacks tend to lead to people shutting down.

Rule 3

• 
  "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions. If you think they are exhibiting un-CMVish behavior, please message the mods."
  
  • We get a lot of controversial and deeply held views here and some people need more convincing than others. Don't automatically assume someone with a controversial view is trolling you or has a closed mind.
  • "To a worm in horseradish, it thinks there's nothing sweeter" - ancient Yiddish proverb. Even if someone's view seems absurd, they may come from a culture or community where it's perfectly normal. They may also not yet have insight into the world outside of the horseradish they've always known until now. Think of this as your opportunity to introduce the worm to applesauce. After all, they did come to a sub called ChangeMyView, so half of your job is already done: the job of getting them to consider that there might be other possibilities. Be their tour guide.
  • Please note that only the original poster is actually required by the rules to have an open mind. The reason that this rule also prohibits accusing others of this is that ad hominem accusations that address the person making the argument rather than the argument itself don't really advance the conversation.
  • Calling anyone a "troll" or similar term is covered by this rule (and may also be a Rule 2 violation).
  • Note that all forms of accusing someone of arguing in bad faith are covered by this rule. If you think a comment violates a rule, please report it rather than accusing other party directly.
  • If you genuinely believe an OP is being closed-minded - report their post! We aren't denying that people come here in bad faith - Rule B removals aren't rare. But we don't see much benefit in lifting Rule 3 for these cases, for two reasons: 1) You might be wrong, in which case calling OP closed-minded is counter-productive, and 2) If you're right, it's much more effective to report them, since this alerts the mods (whereas a call-out comment would not).

Rule 4

• 
  "Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must also include an explanation of the change along with the delta. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc."
  


• A change in view need not be a reversal. It can be tangential, or takes place on a new axis altogether.
• A view changing comment need not be a comprehensive refutation of every point made. It can be a single rebuttal to any sub-arguments.
• 
  This rule covers three things:
  
  • You must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment. We can't force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one. Instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar. Please note that a delta is not a sign of 'defeat', it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion. A delta also doesn't mean the discussion has ended.
  • You must include an explanation as to why and how your view has changed. Particularly if the comment concerned covers many points, some of which may have stood out to you more than others. This part of the rule is an attempt to prevent the meaning of deltas from being "watered down", and also help any readers understand or skim through arguments. Consider it a TL;DR for a successful discussion.
    
  • You cannot use the delta symbol for anything other than a genuine change of view (to any degree). This therefore excludes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, or anything else we deem delta abuse/misuse.
• 
  Reply to the comment that helped you see things in a new way with a "∆" and our friendly /u/DeltaBot will log this achievement in a user's flair, update their individual wiki page and potentially update the deltaboard that appears in our sidebar. Consult the sidebar for a few ways of typing this symbol, or the picture guide below.
  
• 
  Any user, whether they're the OP or not, should reply to a comment that changed their view with a delta symbol and an explanation of the change.
  
• 
  While it is not required, it's also a good practice to go back and edit your OP to mention how your view has been changed. This makes it easier for people to focus their new responses on parts of your view that still remain, or at least not to waste time crafting a lengthy argument about the view you've changed.
  

Rule 5

• 
  "Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes, or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments."
  
  • In order to keep comments relevant to the discussion, we added this rule so users can report posts that don't add anything useful to the thread. To be clear, we're not referring to the effort of an argument - we don't make it our place to judge the strength or weakness of your comment in this regard.
  • 
    Examples of low effort comments:
    
    • Comments that are so short that people have to make assumptions about what is meant in order to understand them and respond to them.
    • Reaction gifs, meme posts, and puns.
    • "lol", "this", "FTFY", "KTHXBYE", "Cheers", etc.
    • Posts that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation, or posts that are directly copy/pasted from another source.
    • Posts that correct someone's spelling or grammar unless it changes the meaning.
    • Simple refutations such as "you're wrong" or "A != B".
    • Posts from bots or in-character novelty accounts. These accounts will be banned.
    • Posts that just say "Yes" or "No" unless you were personally asked a Yes/No question needing no explanation.
  • 
    This rule is particularly important in top-level comments, because the moderators need to have enough clear information to decide if the short comment/joke/link/etc. is actually intended to disagree with OP, without having to be mind-readers.
    
  • 
    Length/conciseness isn't the determining characteristic for Rule 5. Adequate on-topic information is. Depending on the context, sometimes one word answers to specific questions are sufficient, for example.
    
  • 
    Comments which are nothing but a link or a copypasta also count as low effort. A short summary saves people lots of time.
    
  • 
    Overt and obvious attempts to spam, troll (a good example would be pretending to argue in favor of a position at first and saying you were trolling after, which is different from playing devil's advocate as non-OP which is allowed), or otherwise disrupt the discussion (see also a related section in our mod standards) will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
    

Extra InformationViews about Double Standards

• 
  "Double standards" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant.
  
  • Most views like "people treat group A like this, but group B is not" are difficult to discuss in CMV, because it's not clear what the actual view is, and therefore how we should enforce Rule 1. Please think carefully about whether you actually care about the double standard, or if your view is actually that the standard or it's application is wrong.
  • Often, it becomes obvious during the discussion that your real view is "group A shouldn't be treated like this" or "group B should be treated like this". In many cases, the poster actually believes both of these, and is therefore guilty of the very double standard that they are trying to accuse others of. If your view is really one or both of these, please don't use the "double standard" format, because it is very misleading.
  • If you're certain that your view is genuinely about people having a double standard, very often the argument still comes down to "well, one liberal said this thing, and some other liberal said this other thing, so liberals are inconsistent". Please refer to at least one individual or agency (i.e. an entity that could reasonably be expected to have one standard) that is acting inconsistently. The idea that large vague groups are somehow homogeneous in their standards is an unreasonable expectation and very hard to argue.
  • Very often, these "double standards" posts don't explain what you think the standard actually is or what you think it should be. Please be sure to describe the standard that you think is being violated in accurate enough terms for people to actually discuss it.
  • If most of your comments are about how one or the other of the groups is being treated unfairly, that's a strong sign that this is actually your view, and your post may be removed for violating Rule A or B (or both).

Manual Approval
Posts by new, low karma, and throwaway accounts must be approved through modmail.
Posts by accounts that are too new or have low karma are automatically removed by a filter. Please contact the moderators through modmail to have your post approved. Please do not delete your post.
The manual approval rule was added to limit soapboxing on this subreddit. People have often made new accounts to post threads with the intention of spreading their beliefs rather than engaging in a conversation with the users. We realize that there are certain topics or situations that require the use of a new or throwaway account, and therefore we handle these posts on a case-by-case basis.
Non English Posts
Submission and responses made in languages other than English may be removed at the moderators' discretion. We don’t have anything against our international users, but as CMV’s moderation team consists primarily of English speaking users, we simply can’t practically enforce the rules in a language other than English at this time. As our team grows, we will relax this condition to include other languages.
Removed Posts
Comments made in posts that have been removed will still be moderated. We do not want to discourage conversations from continuing, as such all comment rules will still apply even if the parent post has been removed.
Enforcement
These rules are enforced in accordance with the moderation standards. We highly recommend visiting this page to understand our approach to moderating and how these rules are supposed to work in practice.

Here is the Reddit group I was thinking of: https://www.reddit.com/...ngemyview/wiki/rules
and here are their rules:

Submission RulesRule A
Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required)
Why an Original Poster (OP) holds a particular view is an incredibly important thing for commenters to know if they are going to try and convince the OP that they should hold a different view. By not explaining why you hold a particular view, you are going to find yourself giving the same explanation to every commenter over and over again. We’ve found that it is better to get this out of the way upfront, and to edit the post periodically with answers to the most common questions to save everyone time and effort. The reason that we require 500 characters is that we’ve found that this is the minimum amount of explanation the average post needs to launch a productive discussion. Some posts may be able to get away with less than that but they are few and far between, and they are nearly always made better posts with more explanation.
500 characters isn’t all that much - here is what 500 characters looks like:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenita.

Indicators of Rule A Violations

• 
  
  • The 500+ characters of your post need to be an explanation of your view in your own words. While we encourage submitters to use quotations and citations, they do not count towards the character requirement; we want to know what you believe, not what someone else does.
• 
  
  • If you find that many different commenters are asking you the same question about your view, that's a strong indication that the answer to that question should have been included in your original explanation. You can (and should) edit your original post to include that information.
• 
  
  • We don't judge the quality of the arguments posted on CMV, but we will remove submissions which are incoherent, unreadable, or so convoluted that they can't be easily understood.
• 
  
  • Bypassing the character requirement with any form of “filler text” will result in your submission being removed.

Rule B
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing.
The purpose of CMV is for the OP and responders to have an exchange of ideas in an effort to change the view of the OP. If you don’t hold the view, however, then it is impossible to determine if that view has been changed.

• 
  A submission cannot be made on behalf of others...
  
  • Allowing OPs to submit views on behalf of other people would put an impossible burden on them to divine what another person might think. The only way for you to really know if a comment has changed your view is if you can personally evaluate the argument and decide if your view was changed.
  • Historically, OPs posting for others would reply to strong arguments with, “That is what I told them, but they don’t get it!” which doesn’t help bring the discussion to closure.
    
  • If your friend holds a view, encourage them to make an account rather than try to argue on their behalf.
• 
  ...as "devil's advocate...
  
  • Historically, allowing OPs to post views that they don’t actually hold allowed them to use CMV to just fish for better arguments for conversations, assignments or debates. While this isn’t necessarily bad, that is not what we are here for - we are here to help change people’s minds, not win their arguments for them.
  • Even when done in good faith or in a genuine attempt to gain good arguments for a view that they hold, an OP that doesn’t hold a belief can never really have that belief changed so we only allow views that you personally believe to be true or right.
  • Commenters (non-OP) are more than allowed to argue views they do not personally hold in responses.
• 
  ...as any entity other than yourself...
  
  • This prohibits OPs from submitting “in character” or role-playing. Since the OP is not the character in question, it is not possible for them to know what actually change a character’s mind. The only mind you know is your own, so it is the only one you can speak to.
• 
  ....or to soapbox.
  
  • Your submission and subsequent explanations should not aim to convince others, spread your ideas, advocate for a cause, or otherwise “soapbox” in any way. While we do not require that our Original Posters (OPs) want to have their view changed or that they can articulate any doubts they have about their view, we do require that they be open to hearing arguments against that view. They must be willing to seek further understanding for those who disagree with them, and they must enter with the acceptance that their view may be flawed. A good OP must have the mindset that they might be wrong and be genuinely open to exploring that possibility.
  • To that end, OPs must act in a way that demonstrates that willingness. Many people who are soapboxing fall back on claiming that they are "willing to change their view if they see the right argument", but that is not sufficient. The moderators do not have access to their internal mental state, but only to what they see in the post and comments.

Indicators of Rule B Violations
Enforcing this rule requires subjective evaluation of the post by the moderators, which can only be made based on observable behavior. When evaluating this rule, the moderators looks for specific indicators of unwillingness, including but not limited to:

• 
  
  • Cherry-picking weaker arguments to shoot down, while ignoring stronger and more persuasive arguments (including abandoning an exchange that isn’t going your way).
• 
  
  • Dismissing a response by merely pointing out some superficial and partial imperfection, instead of comprehensively refuting its substantive parts, or making concession that it has merit and giving deltas where appropriate.
• 
  
  • Arbitrarily limiting the lines of argument discussed, or demanding impossible/highly unreasonable evidence as the only means to change the view (e.g. that new studies be done or that negatives be affirmatively proven).
• 
  
  • Making ad hoc patches to the original view (without awarding deltas and updating their post accordingly), or rejecting relevant counter arguments for being "unimportant" or "off-topic".
• 
  
  • Reiterating OP’s viewpoints to others (beyond the degree necessary to reply to overlapping responses), while not exploring new grounds offered by others (such as asking genuine follow up questions to gain more insight of an angle).
• 
  
  • Writing the view like a persuasive essay, "rant", or call to action (evidence include explicit statements of intent to change people's' minds, external links to essays by the OP, or requests for advice in advocacy groups/forums supporting the view).

Common Rebuttals to Rule B Removals
When posts are removed for Rule B violations, many of the same justifications are provided. These are listed below, along with why the moderators do not find them compelling arguments. Please review these before appealing a Rule B removal; rehashing any of these arguments as a part of that appeal will only result in the moderators asking you to review this guidance:

• I am open to changing my view.
  
  • To be blunt, saying it doesn't make it so. If your submission was removed as a Rule B violation, it's because multiple moderators agreed that you weren't acting open-minded.
  • If you want to convince us you are open to other opinions, show us evidence of it - provide us links to exchanges where you were working with other users and making progress toward a change of view.
• I just haven't seen a good enough argument/the evidence I want yet.
  
  • Any rational person will be open to changing any view if presented with undeniable proof that it's wrong. That degree of "open-mindedness" isn't sufficient to satisfy Rule B.
  • On a basic level, there has to be a realistic chance of your view changing for a CMV submission to function. If you're requiring an unrealistically high standard of evidence to even consider a shift in perspective, then you're violating Rule B.
• Of course I haven't been convinced, here are all the reasons I'm right
  
  • Your view may indeed be correct; we take no position on that because Rule B isn't about that. Rule B is about your openness to making a change.
  • On any complex issue it should at least be possible to recognize some aspect of the other side which broadens your perspective, even if your core belief is well-justified.
  • In the improbable event that you're completely right about everything, you don't belong on CMV.

Rule C
Submission titles must adequately sum up your view and include "CMV:" at the beginning.
People reading from their front page will know immediately which subreddit the post is from. This is vital, as there is a certain level of respect in CMV that may not be present in other places. If someone is conveying their controversial opinion without including the recognized "CMV" acronym, people may assume this is a closed-minded individual trying to stir controversy. While this can still be present in our subreddit, the "CMV" reminds users to treat this OP with respect and open-mindedness in order to provide new perspectives. Having no acronym may cause some people to jump the gun without realizing which subreddit they're in. Similarly, we feel there is a big difference between "I believe this" and "CMV: I believe this" for setting the tone. At a first glance, one seems to be a closed case and the other is up for discussion. This is important for first impressions on the front page.
Indicators of Rule C Violations

• 
  
  • Titles are questions, not statements. For example, you should write "CMV: Trix are just for kids", not "CMV: Are Trix just for kids?"
• 
  
  • While not strictly prohibited, posts that use inflammatory language or all caps are discouraged because they do not inspire confidence that the OP is here to have their view changed. We are not a G-rated forum and adult language is permissible, but overtly hostile submissions may be seen as indications that the OP is violating the rules on openness to change and be removed for that reason.
• 
  
  • Titles should also avoid inflammatory language or all caps whenever possible. “CMV: I don’t have an anger problem” sets a very different tone than, “CMV: I DON’T HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM YOU JERKS!”

Posts Containing Spoilers
If, and only if, your title contains spoilers for any popular media, please keep the title as vague as you can out of respect to others reading the thread that may not know the spoiler. “CMV: About the ending of Hamlet” allows users to decide if they want the ending spoiled without actually spoiling it; “CMV: Hamlet should not have killed his uncle” doesn’t give them that option.
Spoilers are allowed in the body of posts, so long you indicate the post will contain spoilers; we suggest appending your title with [Spoilers] tag to make this clear.
Rule D
Posts cannot express a neutral stance, suggest harm against a specific person, be self-promotional, or discuss this subreddit (visit r/ideasforcmvinstead)
Over the years, we have found that certain types (not topics) of posts just don’t lend themselves well to the CMV structure and result in very poor discussions. For that reason, we have decided not to allow these types of posts on CMV for purely practical reasons.
We do not remove posts based on content or perceived offensiveness. If your post was removed for violating this rule, it is because the format just doesn’t work well for CMV and not because we are censoring any view point.
Indicators of Rule D Violations

• 
  Neutral Posts: Views that do not take a stance
  
  • Neutral posts are prohibited because we feel like they would only open up discussion for the most popular opinion. In order for people to argue the other side of a view with you, they have to know what that other side is first. Saying, “I believe that X is correct” gives people something to react to; saying “I don’t know if X or Y is correct” does not.
• 
  Personal Harm: Views relating to your life or personal situation are allowed so long as they can't reasonably lead to a dangerous outcome.
  
  • An obvious example, while unlikely, would be "CMV: My life IS worth living". This would hopefully be ignored anyway, but Rule 1 would mean some users might try and convince you that it isn't worth it.
  • A less obvious example - since it's something we'd want you to change your view on - would be "CMV: My life ISN'T worth living". The reason being that commenters might not know how to deal with this situation and inadvertently make it worse, which is a negative experience for everyone involved. When someone subscribes to CMV, they aren't signing up to deal with such a situation. Those subscribing to r/SuicideWatch, however, do expect such posts and we'd therefore recommend you visit there instead - and check out their resources if you are dealing with a crisis.
  • Another example would be both "CMV: I SHOULD leave my abusive partner" and "CMV: I SHOULDN'T leave my abusive partner". These posts are problematic because arguments by commenters or the OP would advocate a dangerous position.
  • This part of the rule also prohibits posts that could personally endanger a specific living individual, e.g. posting about why a public figure should be assassinated. Abstract discussions about the merits of such actions, discussions about the application of law (e.g. the death penalty or other legal punishment) or government/military action, and/or discussions about past actions or historical people remain permissible.
  • We must stress that this rule does not apply to groups of people or general views that you believe indirectly endangers you or your way of life. However, "calls for violence" are against reddit's site policy.
• 
  Self-Promotion: Views that exist only to promote or sell
  
  • If we believe your post was made to promote or advertise something (i.e. YouTube channel, blog, book, etc.), we will remove the post. We will also remove the post if it appears that your goal is advocacy of a specific cause or action (e.g. trying to get users to sign a petition or brigade a website).
  • Links to blogs, YouTube channels and other media that you do not personally control are allowed, providing that the post still satisfies Rule A. Linking to blogs, YouTube channels or other media that you own or control in comments are similarly allowed, providing the comment still satisfies Rule 5.
• 
  Meta-Topics: Views about CMV itself
  
  • We aren't opposed to criticism or suggestions, but we've disallowed "meta" posts from the main site because the format of CMV doesn't suit a genuine suggestion, since OP might not be interested in debating it (which doesn't reduce its potential utility) and the top level comments would have to criticise it in some way, which would make moderator responses difficult.
  • To this end, we have set up an entire sub, r/ideasforcmv, to handle all of our meta discussions. Please note that r/ideasforcmv has a different set of rules, so please review the moderation standards before posting there.

Rule E
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to do so within 3 hours after posting
CMV is about conversation between people who believe different things. The Original Poster (OP) needs to be available to answer questions, provide clarification, evaluate arguments and provide responses as part of a back-and-forth between them and the people in the discussion. If someone takes the time to respond to your post, it is only fair that you be there to read it and respond yourself.
Indicators of Rule E Violations

• 
  No responses from the OP in 3 hours
  
  • For the super popular submissions that get a disproportionate amount of attention, a three (3) hour limit is enough to stop the submission in its tracks if OP is unresponsive.
    
  • This gives plenty of time for responders to see the thread and start engaging with OP. Without a doubt there should be at least a few users in the thread. If we wait any longer, then new users who see it and comment will be wasting their time responding to an OP who isn't there.
  • On the off chance that nobody responds to OP (really, really rare), we will be lenient on the timeframe because obviously OP needs someone to respond to for it to be a conversation. Similarly, if you only receive a few low-effort responses (e.g. "You spelled X wrong" or "It was actually 1990, not 1991") within 3 hours after posting, we won't hold it against you for not responding.
  • If you become available to respond after your post has been removed, it can be reinstated by messaging the moderators. You should only make this request if you can participate within three hours of the reapproval request. Sometimes, it is more beneficial to create a new thread, especially if the original had low participation and a considerable amount of time has passed.
• 
  Low effort responses from the OP
  
  • A small number of one line responses that don't address the arguments that people are making will still result in removal.
  • Additionally, OPs who exclusively respond to people agreeing with them doesn't really count as conversation. You need to actually engage with people who are countering your argument, not look for people who agree with you and bolster your own. Furthermore, frivolous responses (e.g. saying "it's all good" in response to all comments) are not a "conversation".

Comment RulesRule 1

• 
  "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments."
  
  • Before we had this rule, /r/changemyview often became indistinguishable from what /r/reinforcemyview would be like if it had any posts, and OPs would treat us like /r/offmychest. Think of this as the rule that gives /r/changemyview a reason to exist at all, because without it we found threads turning into circlejerks where replies that agreed with the OP would be upvoted to the top of the pile and drown out interesting arguments that--at the very least--made you think about popular topics in a different light. Without Rule 1, /r/changemyview would be superfluous.
  • /r/changemyview is here to offer a particular mode of discussion for OPs that want it. If you want to agree with the OP, consider doing it in a reply to another comment, or send the OP a private message.
  • If you are the OP, don't reply directly to your own post in order to expand your argument or update readers – this can derail the flow of discussion in the comment section. Please edit your original post to include this information instead (as mentioned in Rule A).
• 
  Top level comments that are allowed under rule 1:
  
  • One that challenges at least one material part of the view, no matter how minor (provided not being a "foot in door" technique - see below).
  • One that challenges OP's reasoning, if not OP's conclusion.
  • One that provides alternate reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion, accompanied by a challenge to OP's own reasoning.
    
    • Example: OP argues "Gay marriage should be legal due to X" and the responses is "Gay marriage should be legal due to Y, and X is a bad reason because...".
• 
  Top level comments that are against rule 1:
  
  • One that is entirely dedicated to supporting or merely restating the view or some part of it
  • One that positively expands the view, while leaving the original view intact. Generally comments that argue OP's suggestions "don't go far enough" are against rule 1, unless OP specifically imposes a limit, and the comment challenges that limit.
    
    • Example: OP argues "Gay marriage should be legal" and the response is "You're wrong, because gay marriage and polygamy should both be legal".
      
      • For similar reasons, the response "You're wrong, the government should outlaw marriage entirely because then gay people could form a union" is also against rule 1. See also the "foot in door" technique below.
  • One that is irrelevant to the view
    
    • Example: OP claims to be in favor of fascism. A top-level response that argues against communism (without somehow tying it to fascism explicitly) would violate Rule 1, unless OP actually made some claim about communism.
  • One that merely provides alternate reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion, without challenging OP's reasoning.
    
    • Example: OP argues "Gay marriage should be legal due to X" and the responses is "Gay marriage should be legal due to Y"
  • One that predominantly supports the view, with one's own active input, while correcting some minor aspect, or pretending to ask a clarifying question, in order to pay lip service to rule 1, for the purpose that the arguments in favor of the view can stay. ("foot in door" technique)
    
    • Example 1: If OP argues "Andre the Giant was right; nobody should start a land war in Asia", the response "Actually, Vizzini said that. Also, here is a laundry list of reasons why we still shouldn't start a land war in Asia" would violate Rule 1
      
      • But "Actually, Vizzini said that." (with more wording to avoid low effort - see rule 5) is acceptable on its own.
    • Example 2: "Why would you ever want your mind changed about this? I feel your view is pretty solid..."
  • Questions that are not clarifying and of no appreciable aid in facilitating a view change.
    
    • A mere "why do you want your view changed?" is insufficient to satisfy rule 1 on its own, as the commenter can easily follow up with arguments in favor of OP once OP replies.
• 
  Rule 1's operation does not rest on an impressionistic determination of whether OP's view is traditionally "left/right wing" and whether the comment tries to steer OP's view in a more "left/right wing" direction. The immediate contents of OP's view and the comment and the discrepancy between are what matters.
  

Rule 2

• 
  "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid."
  
  • Would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they're sick? Would you enter an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk? Would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long-haired hippies?
  • Imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of issue, to try and understand different perspectives, and do so without fear of being shamed. This subreddit is intended to be that place. If you think that a person's opinion is vile, and you're insulting them in Change My View, then you're being unproductive. This is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views can come to work it out. (Here's some more info on controversial threads).
  • A lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner. Being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate. Don't like the view? Want to change it? What do you think is more likely to do that - being polite and civil, or rude and hostile? If anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.
  • The CMV moderators do not remove posts or comments for advocating or criticizing any view or opinion, no matter how political or controversial. If your comment was removed for a Rule 2 violation, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument". Some examples of this are known as ad hominem, however, to be precise, you're not allowed to be rude or hostile to a user even if your hostility is also addressed to their argument.
  • "They started it" is not an excuse to break Rule 2. If someone is being rude/hostile to you, report the comment. Retaliatory comments (i.e. being rude/hostile to another user because they were rude/hostile to you first) will be removed and the violating user will receive a warning. No exceptions.
  • "But it was true" isn't an excuse either. We prohibit insults even if you think they're accurate. Insulting other users does not lead to views being changed and just results in unproductive arguments.
  • Attacks on public figures/institutions/categories of people are fair game and you can use whatever language you wish (this is not a G-rated sub), but other users and public figures who are participating as users in this sub are off limits.
  • While irony is an important persuasive tool, your comment may be removed if is sufficiently sarcastic to also constitute an attack on the user.
  • A very common reason that comments are removed is implying or stating that someone "lacks reading comprehension" (or is failing to use it). To be clear, this (and other forms of passive or active condescension) are prohibited by Rule 2.
  • We deliberately avoid removing posts and comments if the only reason is that the view presented is offensive or controversial itself. We also can't remove comments just because the argument is made badly, is inaccurate, or contains logical fallacies. Doing otherwise would suppose that we were somehow the ultimate arbiters of truth or correctness, which we aren't. If you're rude and hostile to someone arguing that it's okay to eat babies, but they're otherwise being civil, then much as it pains us, we'd have to remove your comment and not theirs. The goal of this sub is to have you, the user, point out the problems with another user's comments. The mods are only empowered to break up verbal fistfights.
  • We will reinstate comments if you edit them to "attack the argument, not the person" and send a message to the mods to alert us to the changes.
  • We are somewhat more flexible about rudeness towards someone's argument rather than their character. However, don't use narrow semantic distinctions to try to dodge Rule 2. Calling an argument "moronic" is effectively calling the person making it a moron, in part because arguments themselves don't have intelligence, and therefore can't even be "moronic"... only the arguer can be. An argument can be called fallacious or incorrect, but it can't be called stupid.
  • Variations of rude comments like "If you don't agree with me you are stupid" or "Only a retard would voice an opinion like yours." will be counted as rule 2 violations. Constructing a hypothetical argument where they have to agree with you or be bad is against the spirit of changemyview. Different perspectives should be celebrated, and if those perspectives are wrong they should be challenged on factual grounds not with attacks on people as personal attacks tend to lead to people shutting down.

Rule 3

• 
  "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions. If you think they are exhibiting un-CMVish behavior, please message the mods."
  
  • We get a lot of controversial and deeply held views here and some people need more convincing than others. Don't automatically assume someone with a controversial view is trolling you or has a closed mind.
  • "To a worm in horseradish, it thinks there's nothing sweeter" - ancient Yiddish proverb. Even if someone's view seems absurd, they may come from a culture or community where it's perfectly normal. They may also not yet have insight into the world outside of the horseradish they've always known until now. Think of this as your opportunity to introduce the worm to applesauce. After all, they did come to a sub called ChangeMyView, so half of your job is already done: the job of getting them to consider that there might be other possibilities. Be their tour guide.
  • Please note that only the original poster is actually required by the rules to have an open mind. The reason that this rule also prohibits accusing others of this is that ad hominem accusations that address the person making the argument rather than the argument itself don't really advance the conversation.
  • Calling anyone a "troll" or similar term is covered by this rule (and may also be a Rule 2 violation).
  • Note that all forms of accusing someone of arguing in bad faith are covered by this rule. If you think a comment violates a rule, please report it rather than accusing other party directly.
  • If you genuinely believe an OP is being closed-minded - report their post! We aren't denying that people come here in bad faith - Rule B removals aren't rare. But we don't see much benefit in lifting Rule 3 for these cases, for two reasons: 1) You might be wrong, in which case calling OP closed-minded is counter-productive, and 2) If you're right, it's much more effective to report them, since this alerts the mods (whereas a call-out comment would not).

Rule 4

• 
  "Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must also include an explanation of the change along with the delta. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc."
  


• A change in view need not be a reversal. It can be tangential, or takes place on a new axis altogether.
• A view changing comment need not be a comprehensive refutation of every point made. It can be a single rebuttal to any sub-arguments.
• 
  This rule covers three things:
  
  • You must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment. We can't force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one. Instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar. Please note that a delta is not a sign of 'defeat', it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion. A delta also doesn't mean the discussion has ended.
  • You must include an explanation as to why and how your view has changed. Particularly if the comment concerned covers many points, some of which may have stood out to you more than others. This part of the rule is an attempt to prevent the meaning of deltas from being "watered down", and also help any readers understand or skim through arguments. Consider it a TL;DR for a successful discussion.
    
  • You cannot use the delta symbol for anything other than a genuine change of view (to any degree). This therefore excludes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, or anything else we deem delta abuse/misuse.
• 
  Reply to the comment that helped you see things in a new way with a "∆" and our friendly /u/DeltaBot will log this achievement in a user's flair, update their individual wiki page and potentially update the deltaboard that appears in our sidebar. Consult the sidebar for a few ways of typing this symbol, or the picture guide below.
  
• 
  Any user, whether they're the OP or not, should reply to a comment that changed their view with a delta symbol and an explanation of the change.
  
• 
  While it is not required, it's also a good practice to go back and edit your OP to mention how your view has been changed. This makes it easier for people to focus their new responses on parts of your view that still remain, or at least not to waste time crafting a lengthy argument about the view you've changed.
  

Rule 5

• 
  "Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes, or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments."
  
  • In order to keep comments relevant to the discussion, we added this rule so users can report posts that don't add anything useful to the thread. To be clear, we're not referring to the effort of an argument - we don't make it our place to judge the strength or weakness of your comment in this regard.
  • 
    Examples of low effort comments:
    
    • Comments that are so short that people have to make assumptions about what is meant in order to understand them and respond to them.
    • Reaction gifs, meme posts, and puns.
    • "lol", "this", "FTFY", "KTHXBYE", "Cheers", etc.
    • Posts that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation, or posts that are directly copy/pasted from another source.
    • Posts that correct someone's spelling or grammar unless it changes the meaning.
    • Simple refutations such as "you're wrong" or "A != B".
    • Posts from bots or in-character novelty accounts. These accounts will be banned.
    • Posts that just say "Yes" or "No" unless you were personally asked a Yes/No question needing no explanation.
  • 
    This rule is particularly important in top-level comments, because the moderators need to have enough clear information to decide if the short comment/joke/link/etc. is actually intended to disagree with OP, without having to be mind-readers.
    
  • 
    Length/conciseness isn't the determining characteristic for Rule 5. Adequate on-topic information is. Depending on the context, sometimes one word answers to specific questions are sufficient, for example.
    
  • 
    Comments which are nothing but a link or a copypasta also count as low effort. A short summary saves people lots of time.
    
  • 
    Overt and obvious attempts to spam, troll (a good example would be pretending to argue in favor of a position at first and saying you were trolling after, which is different from playing devil's advocate as non-OP which is allowed), or otherwise disrupt the discussion (see also a related section in our mod standards) will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
    

Extra InformationViews about Double Standards

• 
  "Double standards" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant.
  
  • Most views like "people treat group A like this, but group B is not" are difficult to discuss in CMV, because it's not clear what the actual view is, and therefore how we should enforce Rule 1. Please think carefully about whether you actually care about the double standard, or if your view is actually that the standard or it's application is wrong.
  • Often, it becomes obvious during the discussion that your real view is "group A shouldn't be treated like this" or "group B should be treated like this". In many cases, the poster actually believes both of these, and is therefore guilty of the very double standard that they are trying to accuse others of. If your view is really one or both of these, please don't use the "double standard" format, because it is very misleading.
  • If you're certain that your view is genuinely about people having a double standard, very often the argument still comes down to "well, one liberal said this thing, and some other liberal said this other thing, so liberals are inconsistent". Please refer to at least one individual or agency (i.e. an entity that could reasonably be expected to have one standard) that is acting inconsistently. The idea that large vague groups are somehow homogeneous in their standards is an unreasonable expectation and very hard to argue.
  • Very often, these "double standards" posts don't explain what you think the standard actually is or what you think it should be. Please be sure to describe the standard that you think is being violated in accurate enough terms for people to actually discuss it.
  • If most of your comments are about how one or the other of the groups is being treated unfairly, that's a strong sign that this is actually your view, and your post may be removed for violating Rule A or B (or both).

Manual Approval
Posts by new, low karma, and throwaway accounts must be approved through modmail.
Posts by accounts that are too new or have low karma are automatically removed by a filter. Please contact the moderators through modmail to have your post approved. Please do not delete your post.
The manual approval rule was added to limit soapboxing on this subreddit. People have often made new accounts to post threads with the intention of spreading their beliefs rather than engaging in a conversation with the users. We realize that there are certain topics or situations that require the use of a new or throwaway account, and therefore we handle these posts on a case-by-case basis.
Non English Posts
Submission and responses made in languages other than English may be removed at the moderators' discretion. We don’t have anything against our international users, but as CMV’s moderation team consists primarily of English speaking users, we simply can’t practically enforce the rules in a language other than English at this time. As our team grows, we will relax this condition to include other languages.
Removed Posts
Comments made in posts that have been removed will still be moderated. We do not want to discourage conversations from continuing, as such all comment rules will still apply even if the parent post has been removed.
Enforcement
These rules are enforced in accordance with the moderation standards. We highly recommend visiting this page to understand our approach to moderating and how these rules are supposed to work in practice.

can you re-ask your first question? I was unable to figure out where you had meant to insert a comma and can't quite make out the intent of the question.

I wrote twice that this would be for either moderator designated threads, or self-selected threads. So this would be for a minority of ST threads.

OK, so two people in a row just quoted that set of rules. Those two people would be banned...... but seriously


That set of rules is intense, but that's the extent of guidelines that have been needed for that particular Reddit thread to be hugely popular and successful.

Note, neither of you added any substance to this post, but rather commented as if this were Twitter. The point of this thread was to request more critical thought to the Slowtwitch messageboards.

My suggestion was for particular topics to be made reddit-like, not all topics. For example, it could be interesting for someone to create a thread and be able to self-select the option, "Change My Mind" for a topic like, "Lionel/Taren/KAY/Coggan/Waterboy/Cox is Bad for the Sport, Change My Mind" or "The Price of Triathlon Products is Hurting the Sport, Change My Mind", etc.

Some of us want some critical thinking. And, comments like the two above which add zip-zero to this topic, and un-needingly quote an insanely long post are examples of why some of us just haven't been visiting the ST messageboards any longer.

There's a serious contingent of people who avoid this forum because of posters like yourself. I know you don't care, and you're having fun being a troll, and posters like yourself have existed since ST's inception; and I know what I'm saying is nothing new and I've posted comments like this since before 2004, but I guess I have hope that posts like yours, which come across as bullying, over-believing in yourself, a lack of ability to ponder new ideas openly and critically.... I have hope that folks like yourself hurry up and burn out on the sport, which is inevitable, and go away. here's to hoping. It's nice to see Dan is forward thinking on this topic.

and I know responses like mine get your troll adrenaline pumping and get you giddy - can only hope it spurs a stroke

There's a serious contingent of people who avoid this forum because of posters like yourself. I know you don't care, and you're having fun being a troll, and posters like yourself have existed since ST's inception; and I know what I'm saying is nothing new and I've posted comments like this since before 2004, but I guess I have hope that posts like yours, which come across as bullying, over-believing in yourself, a lack of ability to ponder new ideas openly and critically.... I have hope that folks like yourself hurry up and burn out on the sport, which is inevitable, and go away. here's to hoping. It's nice to see Dan is forward thinking on this topic.

and I know responses like mine get your troll adrenaline pumping and get you giddy - can only hope it spurs a stroke

+1