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

=== ## ===

OP-B1. “It’s more than just a ‘sub-reddit post.’” (wrong frame/genre)
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s “too long / NYT article / smartphone no” cluster (G-A2–A4).
* OP counters: with B2–B7.

OP-B2. It’s a full pinned guide providing necessary context for productive participation; it’s pinned for that reason.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s “too long / wrong medium” claims (G-A2–A3).
* OP counters: with purpose/fit arguments.

OP-B3. Greg’s not wanting to read it is not “an everyone problem”; he’s the first to complain that way.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s underlying claim that the length is a design problem (G-A2).
* OP counters: by framing it as idiosyncratic and not representative.

OP-B4. Workaround: bookmark and read later.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s smartphone/usability complaint (G-A4).
* OP counters: by offering a practical solution.

OP-B5. Platform design implies long posts are acceptable; it’s under the character max.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s “too long for Reddit” stance (G-A2–A3).
* OP counters: by appealing to platform constraints/intent.

OP-B6. If Greg can’t specify what’s “drowning,” he can’t claim it’s unjustified; if he can, he should name what to cut.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s original drowning claim (G-A2).
* OP counters: by demanding specificity (and Greg never provides it).

OP-B7. “What is AI Therapy?” is only the first topic; it’s broader than Greg framed.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s “first half” / “it’s an article” framing (G-A3, plus his “first half” segmentation).
* OP counters: by reasserting scope.

==== OP-D1. Greg is breaking the rules with “Defensive, much?” ====
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s incredulity (“kidding me”) (G-E1) functions as rejection of OP’s enforcement.
* OP counters: by elaborating why it’s deflection/bad faith and pointing to the guide.

OP-D2. Greg is deflecting rather than engaging with points fairly / taking accountability.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s implicit stance that OP is the problem (G-C1, and later G-E1).
* OP counters: by reasserting “address the points” and calling the move rule-violating.

OP-D3. Deflection is “not a good look.”
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s refusal/incredulity posture (G-E1).
* OP counters: by escalating enforcement and framing it as standard.

OP-D4. Greg is assuming defensiveness; OP was clarifying and Greg’s critique got criticized.
* Status: Contested
* Challenged by: Greg’s “Defensive, much?” (G-C1).
* OP counters: directly (D4) + reverses (D13).

OP-D5. Greg’s remark was “spouted off with arrogance.”
* Status: Unquestioned (so far)
* Why: Greg never directly refutes the arrogance characterization.

OP-D6. Greg’s move signals “effective bad faith / ineffective good faith.”
* Status: Unquestioned (so far)
* Why: Greg never answers the bad-faith claim; he disengages.

OP-D8. “This is the only warning you’re getting.”
* Status: Unquestioned
* Why: No one disputes the warning occurred.

OP-D9/D10. Greg should read the second half; it covers what happened and why it won’t be tolerated.
* Status: Unquestioned
* Why: Greg doesn’t contest that the post covers standards; he just rejects the enforcement tone.

OP-D11/D12. If Greg continues to rationalize/distort/deflect, it confirms his “typical Reddit behavior” isn’t compatible with higher standards here.
* Status: Unquestioned (as a prediction/characterization)
* Why: Greg doesn’t rebut; he opts out.

OP-D13. “Defensive, much?” is itself a form of being defensive.
* Status: Unquestioned
* Why: Greg doesn’t respond to the reversal claim.

==== These are the newest claims, and in the provided thread Greg hasn’t replied after them. ====

OP-F1. Greg could have said “my bad… that makes sense.” (normative: what a reasonable response looks like)
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F2. Greg didn’t because he was protecting something (ego/status/etc.).
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F3. Greg tripled down on “appeal to authority,” “intellectual arrogance.”
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F4. Greg used “appeal to ridicule” to shoot the messenger rather than the message.
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F5. Greg was condescending.
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F6. Greg’s response confirmed what OP already thought was the case (about Greg’s pattern).
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F7. Greg is self-deceiving here.
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F8. That makes it hard to believe Greg can teach others what he can’t do himself.
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F9. Greg has a problem that needs addressing and doesn’t recognize it.
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F10/F11. This exchange is an example of what OP warned about in the guide (in more ways than one).
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F12. “Thanks for the real world example.” (rhetorical closer)
* Status: Unquestioned (not really disputable as an argument)

OP-F13. If you can’t handle your criticism being criticized, this isn’t the place for you.
* Status: Unquestioned

OP-F14. That expectation was covered in the post Greg skimmed.
* Status: Unquestioned