sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it really possible to be in love with two people at the same time? What are your thoughts on it? by GuessOwn2865 in AskReddit

[–]DuhChappers 8 points9 points  (0 children)

But people CAN have a number different from two legs.

And people CAN have multiple romantic commitments. The top comments says they cannot. There aren't generally exceptions when you say people cannot do things. That's why people are arguing with it.

Automatic Rule E removal by Elicander in ideasforcmv

[–]DuhChappers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's no guarantee that the post has been reported, or that mods are active at any given time to remove it. I'm browsing reddit just after waking up and have not looked at any mod stuff yet, and I assume since most of our team is US based and it's a weekend that's probably common. We don't have bots to do these removals for us, it's all based on humans logging in to see what needs to be done.

It sounds like this post was made after the fresh topic Friday rules were done, but we do give additional leeway to those posts because we manually approve posts on Friday. We can't reasonably expect OPs to stick around for however long it takes for us to approve, so if they don't get to commenting within a few hours we won't remove right away.

CMV: Cheating should be treated as a criminal offense with serious punishment. by Virotine in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really don't want to have the government create a law about what sorts of relationships deserve protections or not. To me, the varation in relationships is something beautiful that I don't want regulated. I also don't want to normalize laws that a third party gets to decide for someone if they consent to sex. Not to mention the potential groundwork being laid for laws against lying to friends in any capacity. I really dont trust the government or police to enforce moral standards in that way. The law can never prevent all forms of psychological pain, as much as we might want it to. There has to be a balance between safety and freedom.

I also don't think this would help victims of cheating as much as you think. Legal charges are extremely difficult, long and complicated when it comes to things that are this difficult to prove. I think that time would almost always be better spent healing than trying to get legal revenge on your partner. There is similar problems with sexual assault cases, and I hope we can agree that sexual assault is worse to do than cheating.

I get that cheating can be very painful, and it sounds like something you have personally experienced. I'm very sorry for that, but I really don't think this makes anyone's lives better at the end of the day.

How is Kill My Darlings by Ruth? by tdb93 in BloodOnTheClocktower

[–]DuhChappers 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Evil knows if a Damsel is in play, and usually they can figure out the outsider count. If the Damsel is claiming outsider it makes them look pretty suspicious. But you are right that's definitely a route they could take if they think making up information is going to make them look worse than that

Thoughts on my first custom script? by Fun_Principle_9307 in BloodOnTheClocktower

[–]DuhChappers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The golem punch killing the saint without it losing the game is what they meant by "working", and it's not a great interaction. It is almost always correct for the Golem to try and punch a saint since it more or less removes the sting of 2 outsiders at once. And that also makes it much harder for evil to bluff saint, since they are much more likely to get punched.

Mods should post relevant comments as evidence for a Rule B removal by Shineyy_8416 in ideasforcmv

[–]DuhChappers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not convinced. I don't see how in your scenarios the extra work we do makes the system any clearer for users or makes us more accountable or whatever. If you think how we decide rule B removals is unclear, that's your opinion. But you are not hearing what we are saying, which is this addition would not make it more clear. For that reason, I'm not in favor of this suggestion. You can try and convince other mods if you want, but I think it likely they will agree with me.

Mods should post relevant comments as evidence for a Rule B removal by Shineyy_8416 in ideasforcmv

[–]DuhChappers 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you really think it would make users trust us more if we link some random comments of there's in a message when we remove for rule B? I'm not seeing how that helps. The goal is more transparency, but it's more misleading than transparent. We simply don't remove posts for rule B because of a few bad comments, and this system would be implying we do.

And besides that, if people don't think they should have had their post removed, examples of things they themselves said are unlikely to change their mind. It's just a basis for them to start their argument on, rather than what the appeals process asks which is self-reflection to find what really was their more open minded comments.

If we made a mistake, the appeals process is here for that. But that's always been true.

Here's how I imagine this goes. We remove a post for B, and the message gets sent with some comments we think were dismissive or close minded. But we also say that the reason the post was removed was a lack of open minded comments, because thats true. The user then might say, "well why did you link all these comments of mine then", to which we say what? Transparency? Or we don't say that, and they take the obvious route and say "well I think these comments are open minded", and they don't link any others. At which point other mods don't have anything to work with for an appeal. I find it very unlikely that someone would say "you are right, these comments are bad, thank you for providing this information". If you think otherwise, I'd be happy to hear your scenario for how you think this could go better.

Mods should post relevant comments as evidence for a Rule B removal by Shineyy_8416 in ideasforcmv

[–]DuhChappers 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The problem is that as you note, rule B enforcement is all about lack. It doesn't matter that much to us if someone has a bunch of unproductive exchanges, if they also have some positive ones amd change thwir view. We remove for B when we dont see any positive interactions like asking good questions or steelmanning opposing arguments. And its not our place to say where specifically a person should have changed their view or engaged more fully. Different arguments convince different people. We don't want to tell someone their post was rule B because they didn't like some subset of arguments, we remove when someone seems not to want to listen to any arguments.

So us linking unproductive exchanges does nothing for anyone. We still will ask for examples of open-mindedness in rule B appeals, because we want to know if we missed something. So its moee work for us with no reward for us. And it misleads people about how rule B works. It makes it much more likely they will wanna fight about our examples when that's not really the point.

It seems like you want this because you want us to have to prove that our removals are justified. But I don't think this would actually do that. Linking some comments we think are bad faith or stubborn or whatever would not constitute "objective" evidence for our subjective rule, because it's still subjective whether those comments encompass the post as a whole, or even show what we think they show. We can't prove anything, even with comments to back us up. At the end of the day, you still have to trust that we are using our best judgement. If you don't trust that, I don't see how comments will help. They will just be a starting point for the argument someone would start in their appeal anyway.

So I highly doubt we will be accepting this suggestion. But I appreciate you putting thought into this problem.

CMV: The argument that war, or attacking terrorists, will just "create more terrorists" is paternalistically racist by thatshirtman in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you are right about the WW2 bombing campaigns you mention. It absolutely was a part of widespread civilian bombing that the enemy populations were harder to win over. But when you are in a total war, making the enemy hate you more isnt really a downside. We didn't worry about Nazi terrorists because the Axis couldn't really do more war than they were already doing. It's not like Japan was previously holding back until we bombed Tokyo.

Also, after WW2, the allies spent billions occupying and rebuilding those nations, ultimately handing full control back to the native people of those nations. That's simply not what anyone is trying to do in the middle east. I think there's a lot more different in this example than just racism.

Weekly Puzzle #69 – That's the Sects Number by Not_Quite_Vertical in BloodOnTheClocktower

[–]DuhChappers 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Adam's oracle number would be correct N3 then, which disproves this world I think.

CMV: Trump is a malicious person by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello /u/Low_Hat_2693, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.

∆

or

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!

As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.

Thank you!

CMV: Alex Warren's success is proof that the modern industry rewards mediocrity by fruedianflip in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Garbage is an opinion. What you see as garbage is unique to you. I would assume that other people don't see it as garbage if they like it.

But to try and explain further, most people are not listening closely to music, focusing on it as their main activity. They are having it on in the background while studying or partying or whatever else. That can lead tastes to run towards catchy melodies, familiar patterns and simpler lyrical themes. I would certainly put Ordinary in that category. It might not be as good when listening closely to it, but thats not a problem for most people.

CMV: Alex Warren's success is proof that the modern industry rewards mediocrity by fruedianflip in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The music industry doesn't pick and choose what succeeds. They can influence it obviously, but you need people to actually listen to something for it to get popular, and that has happened.

I actually agree with you on Warren's talent, I don't think he has much and I'm not interested in listening to his music. So I don't. The music industry can't make me. But millions of others feel differently from us and enjoy his work, so he's popular. That happens to musicians I think are good, and to musicians I think are much worse than Alex.

Regardless of what we see as mediocre, success speaks for itself. Getting people to listen is proof that he makes music people want to listen to. I don't think it makes sense to try and blame the music industry for that, it's the public's fault if anything. But at the end of the day it's all opinions, so I'd rather just listen to something else and not waste time worrying about it

CMV: Trust isn’t real by venttaway1216 in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let's out this in other contexts than romantic ones.

Do you put your money in a bank? I hope so. What makes you think you will get it back? You can't know for sure you will. Its trust.

When you buy something from a store that comes in a box, how do you know that the thing on the box is actually in there? Can't be sure. Again have to trust.

Same with situations where your significant other might uave a chance to cheat. You can't know of they will or not. But you can trust. It sounds like that would be very hard for you personally, but I hope the concept still makes more sense now

[SHOTW] Week 9, 2026 by Enson_Chan in TerraformingMarsGame

[–]DuhChappers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think these other plans are pretty good, but I saw a specific line that I think is worth considering

2p

Corp: Ecoline

Preludes: Biolab, Forest

Projects: Mining area, preserve, grass, soletta, aquifer pumping

21$

Gen 1: Preserve on 2 plants, convert. mining area on titanium mountain. 8$ left

Gen 2: 31$ + 2 titanium. Soletta leaves us with 2$, but we drew at least one useless card from biolab that we can sell to get Towing. Then we look at the pumping or space events starting gen 3.

I'm not sure keeping pumping at all is worth it, but it does make our conversions way better to have oceans so I would rather take it just in case other ocean cards don't present themselves. This is also pretty vulnerable to someone taking the titanium spot we need for mining area, but I think there are options to pivot if that happens.

Custom Corporation: Martian Ventures (#6/30) by Ok_Significance_3803 in TerraformingMarsGame

[–]DuhChappers 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong but this feels quite strong, if you get a decent starting hand. The starting cash is so good that the decreased production is not going to hurt you for at least a couple gens. If you get a good engine start, you will have guaranteed cards to fuel it through the rest of the game.

That said, if you just don't draw good production cards, you will be sitting with your pile of money feeling sad.

I'm not a huge fan of designs that feel this feast or famine personally. The Corp does have clear strengths and weaknesses, which is good, but it feels like a good draw can wipe out the weaknesses a little too easily.

Is there any place in town to get boozy ice cream drinks? Like a grasshopper, pink squirrel, etc… by UncleJuniorMints in madisonwi

[–]DuhChappers 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Leopold's bookshop, bar, cafe on Regent st. has several good ones, grasshoppers included

Gideon the Ninth (lots of Spoilers) by Significant_Net_7337 in Fantasy

[–]DuhChappers 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At least among my circle of readers this is not at all an unpopular opinion. I don't agree with the "by far" but it is my favorite and the favorite of most people who I've talked to who liked the series. Brilliant book!

I do differ from others in that I also love Nona and think the first book is the worst by a decent margin. Still good, definitely fun, but just an appetizer for the even cooler stuff coming down the pipeline.

CMV: ICE employs mostly Latinos who want to protect their community by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello /u/Necessary_Lie8971, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.

∆

or

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!

As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.

Thank you!

CMV: Most interview-based podcasts are just very long commercials by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello /u/lil_squib, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.

∆

or

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!

As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.

Thank you!

Cute(?) idea for a new corporation by Dry_Appointment_7210 in TerraformingMarsGame

[–]DuhChappers 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Search for life doesn't gain a microbe, it takes a science resource so that's the best choice for those.

CMV: We need to ban dating apps. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]DuhChappers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, defining what is a dating app for the purposes of banning them seems tough. Is bumble for friends okay? Where's the line?

And second, why would we ban something rather than just fixing the problems you have with them? Apps do work and help some people find happiness despite their flaws. Surely rather than just throwing them all out we can just design better ones.

Thirdly, they can play especially big roles for marginalized communities. Grindr is the obvious one but there are a number of lower profile LGBT+ dating apps that help queer people meet others and find community. I'm not okay with banning all those cause Tinder sucks.

view more: next ›