Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

=== If we treat the debate as ending now, and we apply your closure rule (negate all “in question” claims by their standing counters), then the unquestioned residue is: ===
# The ruleset exists and Greg was banned for breaking rules from it (within this dataset).
# The pinned post is intentionally a pinned guide / onboarding context piece, not “just a casual Reddit post” (OP’s justification stands against the defeated “universal standard / invalid format” framing).
# The “obviously unpruned AI / OP didn’t put effort in” accusations are not established; OP’s “many hours + active editing + under 40k cap” effort claim becomes the default standing account.
# The “flowchart / list spam” critique is treated as mischaracterization on the record you provided (no flowchart; organized sections; graphics would still be text-heavy).
# The “gish gallop / meandering / impossible to respond in time” framing becomes unsupported (no time pressure; OP invites engaging even one point).
# The “mod censure because they wouldn’t respond” framing becomes unsupported; enforcement is framed as rule/behavior-based, and the ban context aligns with that.
# Greg’s endorsement that the first half is “100% spot on” and “should be the standard model” remains unchallenged (even if not proven).

And what still remains contested even after all that:
* Whether the post is too long in a design/usability sense (preference/values dispute).
* Whether OP’s style is “poorly taking criticism” vs “appropriate critique/enforcement” (interpretive dispute).

If you want, I can also output this as a strict “final ledger” with three columns—Survives as Unquestioned, Negated, Still Contested—for every single numbered argument we’ve tracked.