Wiki index

Submission Rules

These rules apply to the OP and their submission only.

Rule 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 that 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.
  • "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.
  • 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 changes 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 from 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 look for specific indicators of unwillingness, including but not limited to:

  • Explicit statements of intent to change the views of others

  • 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 a 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 counterarguments for being "unimportant" or "off-topic".

  • Extensive deletion of comments, particularly in threads where strong counterarguments are presented.

  • Repeated violations of commenting rules - particularly Rule 2 and Rule 3 - in replies.

  • 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 into an angle).

  • Writing the view like a persuasive essay, "rant", or call to action (evidence includes 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).

  • Trojan Horse CMVs: situations where an OP posts about a topic, but is really looking to talk about a different, unrelated topic. For example, an OP posts "CMV: Cars should have stricter regulations around sale" and whenever anyone comments, the OP replies, "Yeah, but when you make that argument about guns..." OP is really trying to argue about gun control - not cars - and is using the car arguments to try and make a separate point around guns.

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 that 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

  • The title is a question, rather than a statement. Titles should state what you believe and not be a question. 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 the [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/ideasforcmv instead)

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 viewpoint.

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 is 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 endanger 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 the 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. Please note that these may still be removed if we believe that the purpose of posting the link is exclusively to self-promote, per our policy on sales.
  • 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 criticize 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 conversations 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 don'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 Rules

These rules apply to all commenters involved in the discussion.

Rule 1

Direct responses to a submission must challenge or question at least one aspect of the submitted view. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments.

In order to prevent Change My View from becoming another echo chamber, all direct responses should challenge or attempt to clarify some part of the submitter’s view; agreement with the view is restricted to replies to responses. Your goal as a commenter should be to challenge the Original Poster (OP) and help them understand why they might be wrong in their viewpoint, not provide additional reasons that they might be right.

If we allowed responses that reinforced the OP’s view as top-level, CMV would quickly become an echo chamber where only popular opinions were allowed. It would also increase the likelihood that people would come here to soapbox rather than take a critical look at their own viewpoint. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, that is not what CMV is for, so this rule ensures that all direct replies must present some argument against the stated view.

Clarifying questions are acceptable in top-level comments, but it must be clear that their goal is to advance the conversation or better understand the OP’s initial position.

OPs cannot make top-level comments for any reason. If you need to clarify your view, please edit your post instead.

Please note that when we say the post must challenge at least one aspect of OP's stated view (however minor) this means that you may challenge a relatively minor portion of the view not that you may spend the majority of your comment agreeing or arguing an unrelated subject (see the Foot in the Door section below).

What isn’t acceptable in a top-level comment

  • This should be obvious, but saying something like "Your view is correct. You're wrong to think that you should change it." Also included in this provision are comments that only confirm that the OP’s view is accurate or already in place (e.g. “CMV: Murder should be illegal” - “It already is”) or that their view is not worth discussing.

  • A comment that is entirely dedicated to supporting or merely restating the view or some part of it

  • Positively expanding the view while leaving the original view unchallenged; comments that argue OP's suggestions "don't go far enough"

  • Providing alternate reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion; saying that the OP is “right for the wrong reasons”

  • Non-sequiturs that don't address OP's view. E.g. OP claims to be in favor of fascism and the top-level response argues against communism (without somehow tying it into fascism explicitly)

  • Musing about random topics that are not the topic of the view.

  • Questions that are not clarifying and of no appreciable aid in facilitating a view change.

  • One that predominantly supports the view (or argues an unrelated topic) while correcting only a tangential aspect of the view; otherwise known as the Foot in the Door Technique (see below)

The Foot in the Door Technique

We allow direct responses to challenging minor aspects of the OP's argument, but we do not allow posters to use nods to disagreement as a means to 'get their foot in the door' and then devote the bulk of their response to an agreement or unrelated subjects. Correcting some minor aspect of the view, or pretending to ask a clarifying question to get by on a technicality will result in your comment being removed. Top-level comments must challenge some part of OP's core view to avoid this provision.

For example, 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) is acceptable.

Rule 2

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid.

Change My View is meant to be a place where a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of the issue, to try and understand different perspectives, and do so without fear of being attacked. This is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views can come to work it out.

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 respond in a mature manner. Being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate. If you think that a person's opinion is vile, and you're insulting them in CMV, then you're being unproductive.

Controversial, Inaccurate, and "Bad" Arguments

We deliberately avoid removing posts and comments if the only reason is that the view presented is offensive or controversial. We also don’t remove comments just because the argument is made badly, is inaccurate, or contains logical fallacies. Doing so 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 response and not theirs. The goal of CMV is to have you, the user, change views and not just point out the problems with another user's responses - sometimes this is done best by educating someone that their argument has issues. The moderators are only empowered to break up verbal fistfights, and those are the only comments we will remove.

Groups vs. Individuals

This rule only covers rudeness and hostility towards individual CMV users, not groups of people or other figures not participating in the discussion. Attacks on public figures, institutions, and/or categories of people are allowed and you can use whatever language you wish, but other users and public figures who are participating in the discussion are off-limits.

The reason for this is that if we were to say that groups of people can not be insulted or criticized, it would be nearly impossible to discuss anything of value on CMV. While these opinions on groups may be unpleasant or vile, those are the exact opinions CMV wants to try and change. If someone feels negative about a group we want them to come here, post that opinion, and have others try and explain to them what they are missing or don’t yet understand.

Moreover, limiting what can be said about any group of people would put the moderators in a position of having to decide which groups were off limits to criticism and which were not. That is not a power that we can, should, or want to have.

Please note that an insult to a group does not always equate to an insult to an individual who might be a member of the said group for the purposes of this rule, and is thus not necessarily removable. There is an exception to this when it is clear that the group insult was directly aimed at a commenter who identified with the group.

Offensive Labels

Labeling someone with an offensive term, e.g. “You are a racist”, is a violation of this rule unless the person applied that label to themselves first. You are free to call the idea they present an offensive term - “That viewpoint is racist” - but you must stop short of saying anything about the person making the comment. Talking about ideas is fine, talking about a person is not.

The offensiveness (and removability) of any given label is determined by the moderators, in line with sociocultural norms and the context of the comment. If you see a label that you feel is offensive but the comment is not removed, please feel free to message us and let us know why that label is problematic.

Passive Aggression

This rule also covers excessively passive-aggressive comments or backhanded compliments. For example, a very common reason for removals 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.


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. 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.

“Conditional insults” 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 violations of this rule. Constructing a hypothetical argument where they have to agree with you or be insulted is against the spirit of CMV. 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. If your comment was removed, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument". You are not allowed to be rude or hostile to a user even if your hostility is also addressed to their argument.

Severe Infractions: KYS, Threats, and Doxxing

Telling, instructing, or even suggesting to another user to kill themselves is a prima facie violation of Rule 2 in any context. The same goes for direct threats or wishes of violence or harm, or any form of doxxing. These behaviors are so antithetical to the premise of CMV that we have a zero-tolerance policy. If you threaten, dox, instruct another use to kill themselves, or wish harm upon someone - in seriousness or even in jest - it will result in an immediate permanent ban from CMV without exception.

Common Rebuttals to Rule 2 Removals

When posts are removed for Rule 2 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 2 removal; rehashing any of these arguments as a part of that appeal will only result in the moderators asking you to review this guidance:

  • They started it.
    • This is not an excuse to break the rule. If someone is being rude/hostile to you, report it. Retaliatory responses (i.e. being rude/hostile to another user because they were rude/hostile to you first) will be removed and the violating user(s) will receive a formal warning. No exceptions.
    • We often get asked, “Well, why didn’t you remove their comment too?” Typically the answer to this is, “Because no one reported it”. We can’t review every single comment and we rely on user reports to help us moderate. If you want us to take a look at another comment, report it and it will get reviewed.
  • But it was true.
    • This 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.
    • This counterargument is particularly common when posts are removed for using an offensive label (e.g. “You are a racist”). Our position is that since there is no universal or objective standard for these labels, they cannot be “true” and thus still violate the rule
  • I was being sarcastic/I was joking
    • While irony is an important persuasive tool, your comment may be removed if is sufficiently sarcastic to also constitute an attack on the user.

Rule 3

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view.

Another common reason for removals is accusing the submitter of being a troll, soapboxer, or otherwise purposefully arguing in bad faith. While being open to changing one’s views is a requirement for submitting (see the other rules), accusing them of trolling only serves to make people who truly are open more defensive and less likely to hear what you have to say. We do allow mild comments - such as pointing out that someone might be moving the goalposts on their argument - as rhetorical techniques, but only insofar as they help to advance the primary goal of changing views.

Apply the principle of charity here - assume people have an open mind, and, if you think they don’t, report the post to us and we’ll look into it. Keep in mind that only the submitter has the requirement for openness - commenters are not required to argue in good faith and playing “devil’s advocate” is specifically allowable.

Similar to Rule 2, accusations of bad faith are disallowed no matter how accurate you feel the accusation to be. Removal appeals using the justification “but it is true” will be closed without action.

Accusing another user of lying - deliberate or otherwise - or otherwise purposefully telling untruths is a violation of this rule.

Rule 4

Award a delta when acknowledging a change in your view, and not for any other reason

Celebrating view changes is at the core of Change My View, so if your view is changed, reply to the response that changed it with a short explanation as to how and award a Delta; do not use deltas sarcastically, jokingly, or when you already agree with the response.

It is important that you award deltas any time your view has been changed. We want to be a place where people are not only rewarded for expanding the views of others but a place where Original Posters (OPs) are celebrated for deepening their own understanding.

When awarding a delta, you must include an explanation as to why and how your view has changed. Particularly if the response 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 too long; didn’t read (TL;DR) for a successful discussion. Deltas can not be awarded to the OP. While we understand that sometimes an OP might change your view to their stance, allowing OPs to receive deltas would incentivize people to come to CMV to soapbox in an attempt to persuade others. As this is a direct violation of Rule B (and potentially Rule 1), we disallow OPs from receiving deltas.

When to award deltas

You must award a delta if you had a change of view or have mentioned a change of view in your response. 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. 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.

A change in view need not be a complete reversal. It can be tangential or takes place on a new axis altogether. A view-changing response need not be a comprehensive refutation of every point made. It can be a single rebuttal to any sub-arguments. While it is not required, it's also a good practice to go back and edit your submission 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.

Any user, whether they're the OP or not, should award a delta if their view is changed.

Example of awarding a delta:

Delta Award

This picture is in reference to this comment.

When not to award deltas

Since deltas are a key component of how CMV works, their misuse is strictly controlled. You cannot award deltas for anything other than a genuine change of your view (to any degree). This therefore excludes:

  • Sarcastic deltas

  • Joke deltas

  • “Super-agreement” or “Upvote” deltas

  • Deltas awarded to the OP

  • Awarding deltas on behalf of another user you feel should have awarded one. If you feel that another user should have awarded a delta but did not, message us and we can award one manually if necessary

  • Anything else that awards a delta for anything other than a genuine change of your view

Rule 5

Responses must contribute meaningfully to the conversation

In order to keep responses relevant to the discussion, 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 - but rather to the effort of the comment itself.

Examples of Low Effort Comments

  • Responses that are so short that people have to make assumptions about what is meant in order to understand them and respond to them.

  • Vague questions like “What?” or “Huh?”

  • Reaction gifs, meme posts, and puns.

  • "lol", "this", "FTFY", "KTHXBYE", "Cheers", etc.

  • Responses that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation, or that are directly copy/pasted from another source unless a specific link or quote was requested. If you want to link a source, include a short summary of what that source says and why it is relevant to the argument. A short summary saves people a lot of time.

  • Responses that correct someone's spelling or grammar unless it meaningfully changes the argument or view.

  • Simple refutations such as "you're wrong" or "A != B".

  • Responses from bots or in-character novelty accounts. These accounts will be banned.

  • Responses that just say "Yes" or "No" unless you were personally asked a Yes/No question needing no further explanation.

  • Responses that allege a logical fallacy was made without explaining how/why or why that fallacy invalidates the argument.

  • Responses that just express agreement, such as “You’re right” or “Great post”. You are allowed to agree with someone in your response, but you must also add something to the discussion in the process. If you just want to call out a post as good without adding anything to the discussion, use the Upvote button.

We will also remove comments under this rule that are so tangential to the conversation that it is impossible to connect them back to the discussion. This includes, but is not limited to, trying to soapbox completely unrelated issues.

Spam, Sales, Pornography and Violence

Links to sites that are clearly spam, pornography, an attempt to sell or promote a product or service, and/or contain video/audio of terrorist attacks or other excessively violent content will also be removed under this rule. We do not believe that these links provide value to the conversation.

Extra Information

Views 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.

Deliberate Attempts to Disrupt Discussion

Not everyone comes to CMV to argue in good faith, and while we do not allow people to make accusations like that in the forum, we do acknowledge that those people exist. Bad-faith users are defined as users whose activity on CMV is overwhelmingly dedicated to making incendiary responses, with the apparent intent of instigating conflict and inciting rule violations by other users.

Simply disagreeing with you or not having their view changed by your argument is not sufficient to conclude the person violates this. Neither is someone playing devil’s advocate (which is specifically allowed) - there is a difference between someone arguing a side of an issue they don’t agree with or passionately arguing for their beliefs, and someone who is not here to argue in good faith at all. We evaluate bad-faith users on two key criteria:

  • Their comments are minimally or tangentially related to the submission's primary topic of discussion (if they are related at all). These comments will be removed under Rule 5.

  • They are nearly exclusively engaging in chronic hostility (especially advocating violence) toward groups or individuals.

This is not to say that all responses that may meet these criteria will be removed. At times, hostility towards groups or responses that seem tangential may still be valuable to the discussion being had. We apply this very narrowly and only remove items when it is clear that the user was not here to have a discussion, but rather to rile up others and cause general disruption.

We also see users who routinely delete their posts and/or comments as disruptive. While we understand that from time to time it may be necessary to delete a post or comment (for a variety of legitimate reasons) doing this excessively makes it difficult for people to engage with you in a meaningful way. If you are concerned about a particular view being associated with your primary account, you can create a “throwaway” (a new, single use account) to post the view.


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.