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

=== Assistant: Got it — you’ve just added new public evidence other commenters plus two new meta-claims about “phone responsibility” a… ===
Got it — you’ve just added new public evidence (other commenters) plus two new meta-claims (about “phone responsibility” and “tone overgeneralization / OP’s purpose / HSCM creator). That changes the “standing objection” landscape in a predictable way.

I’ll do this in three passes:
# Extract the new arguments you just added (A + B) and give each a status.
# Show exactly which earlier claims those new arguments now contradict/pressure, and how that changes status (especially the “smartphone NO” and “not worth your time” angles).
# Give a clean “what’s now unquestioned vs in-question vs still inherently contested” ledger if the debate stops here.

==== ### ====

I’ll label these “TP” (third-party) arguments. Even when short, they still imply claims.

TP1 (Successful_Candy_767):
* TP1a: “This is absolutely needed for a subreddit like this.”
* TP1b: “Those who can’t handle the nuance/value and can’t treat the subject/others with respect shouldn’t be here.”
* TP1c: “I can tell a lot of care and thought went into writing this.” Status (all TP1 parts): ✅ Unquestioned (no one in the provided material challenges these endorsements)

TP2 (Fantastic_Judge7634):
* TP2: “Thank you for your work.” (implicit: work was valuable / appreciated) Status: ✅ Unquestioned

TP3 (Forward_Proposal_520):
* TP3a: Framing AI as structured mirror (not fake therapist) is the right mindset and safer.
* TP3b: Method/guardrails/anchors are more protective than label arguments.
* TP3c: Danger spikes when “tool over relationship” becomes “only safe person,” and OP naming those red flags is good.
* TP3d: “Eureka vs integration” framing is valuable. Status: ✅ Unquestioned

TP4 (Due_Investigator5718):
* TP4: “All of this is amazing! Thank you for your work!” (implicit: worth reading, valuable) Status: ✅ Unquestioned

===== U-A (your A-sentence): “If someone chooses to read this on their phone, that’s on them (a platform that began desktop-first).” =====
* This is an accountability framing: the “phone readability” critique shouldn’t be treated as an objective flaw of the post; it’s a user choice / context problem. Status: ✅ Unquestioned (no one in the provided thread counters this claim yet)

U-B1 (your B): “Tone is an overgeneralization; OP explains the purpose of assertiveness and hole-poking.”
Status: ✅ Unquestioned (no counterargument appears after OP’s explanation)

U-B2 (your B): “OP is the creator of the Humble Self-Concept Method.”
Status (within the thread dataset): ✅ Unquestioned — but it’s still an external factual assertion we haven’t seen corroborated in the comments themselves. So: unquestioned in-thread, not “verified.”

==== ### ====

Original claim (Greg): “Reading on a smartphone is a NO.”
This can mean two different things:
# Personal preference claim: “I don’t want to read this on my phone.”
# Universal/standard claim: “This is not phone-readable / shouldn’t be this long because phones exist.”

Your added material mainly pressures (2), not (1).

Standing objections against the universal/standard version now include:
* OP’s earlier workaround: bookmark/read later.
* Your accountability framing (U-A): phone choice is on the user.
* TP evidence (TP1–TP4): multiple people found it worth engaging with (doesn’t prove “phone is fine,” but undercuts “this is obviously unusable/invalid”).

Updated status:
* Universal/standard version: ⚠️ In question (standing objections exist; no rebuttal provided)
* Personal preference version: ✅ Unquestioned (nobody disputes Greg is allowed to dislike reading long posts on a phone)

===== Original (SReflection): “If you didn’t put in the time… people are going to feel it isn’t worth their time.” =====
Even though it’s framed as conditional, it carries an implied premise: “this looks low-effort / unedited.”

Your new public comments are direct counterevidence to the generalized outcome (“people won’t think it’s worth it”):
* TP1 explicitly says care/thought is visible.
* TP2/TP4 express gratitude and praise (worthwhile).
* TP3 engages substantively with specific sections and praises the method (signals value and effort).

Updated status:
* The strong/general version (“people are going to feel it isn’t worth their time” as a broad prediction): ⚠️ In question (now contradicted by multiple public comments showing the opposite)
* The weaker version (“some people will feel that way”): ✅ Unquestioned (that’s trivially true; Greg and SReflection are examples)

===== Your TP comments don’t directly refute “AI-generated,” but they do refute the dismissive inference that it therefore wasn’t worth time / lacked care. OP also directly rebutted the “inaccurate” premise by asserting many hours of editing and authorship. =====

Updated status:
* “It’s obviously AI-generated and unpruned” (as a confident factual claim): ⚠️ In question (OP’s standing rebuttal remains, and now TP1 supports “care/thought is visible,” which is inconsistent with “unpruned” as a certainty-claim)
* “It reads like AI to me” (subjective impression): ✅ Unquestioned (a person’s feeling is not falsifiable; only the leap to “therefore it’s low-effort/invalid” is pressure-tested)

===== Your B point (“tone is an overgeneralization”) reinforces OP’s already-standing rebuttal: that he’s critiquing criticism and enforcing standards, not “taking it personally.” =====

Updated status:
* SReflection’s claim that OP has a “tremendous issue” taking criticism: ⚠️ In question (standing objections now include OP’s explanation and your explicit “tone is an overgeneralization” claim, with no reply shown)

==== I’ll separate: ====

===== These have no standing rebuttal against them in the provided material: =====
# Multiple public commenters found the guide valuable, necessary, and effortful (TP1–TP4).
# OP claims substantial time/effort/editing was invested (still unrefuted after OP’s reply; now indirectly supported by TP1’s “care and thought”).
# People can prefer not to read long posts on phones (as a personal preference).
# Tone-based judgments are easily overgeneralized (your B claim is unchallenged in the provided slice).
# Greg was banned for breaking the sub’s rules (as you stated; unchallenged within this dataset).

===== These are the ones now under standing pressure: =====
# “Smartphone reading is a NO” (as a universal/standard indictment).
# “People are going to feel it isn’t worth their time” (as a general prediction).
# “It’s obviously AI-generated and unpruned” (as a confident factual conclusion rather than a personal impression).
# “OP has a tremendous issue taking criticism positively” (as a broad character inference from tone).

If we treat these as “negated by standing counters” at debate-close, then what becomes effectively unquestioned is:
* The “not worth your time / low-effort” inference doesn’t hold generally, because multiple public comments contradict it and OP asserts strong effort.
* The phone complaint can’t serve as an objective indictment of the post’s legitimacy, because it’s user-context-dependent (bookmarking / device choice / desktop availability).
* Tone alone isn’t sufficient to conclude “can’t take criticism,” because OP supplies an alternative explanation (assertiveness for standards + critique-of-critique), and you explicitly flag tone as overgeneralized.

===== Even after negating the “in question” claims, these remain unresolved because they’re ultimately about design preference and norms: =====
* “The post is too long” vs “the length is justified by purpose.” Public praise helps OP; it doesn’t logically force everyone to agree it’s the optimal format.

==== Adding those public comments doesn’t prove the guide is perfectly formatted — but it does strongly undercut the generalized claims that (a) it’s not worth people’s time, or (b) the length/device issue is an objective flaw rather than a preference/context issue, and it further weakens tone-only conclusions about OP’s inability to take criticism. ====

If you want the next step, pick one:
# Update the entire full-thread argument ledger (Greg + OP + SReflection + TP comments) with final statuses.
# Focus narrowly on the smartphone claim and produce the cleanest “personal preference vs universal standard” breakdown.
# Focus narrowly on tone / ‘can’t take criticism’ and map what evidence would be needed to make either side’s claim actually convincing.