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

==== ### ====

O1. “It’s more than just a subreddit post.”
* Status: Contested
* Greg challenged the “fit” of long-form on Reddit; OP answered. It’s an active disagreement, not a settled one.

O2. “It’s a pinned guide / important context / starting place for newcomers.”
* Status: Contested
* Greg’s original critique implicitly contests this being appropriate; OP counters.

O3. “Your not wanting to read it isn’t an everyone problem; you’re the first to complain this way.”
* Status: Contested
* It’s a claim about representativeness; Greg’s stance is essentially “it’s objectively too long.” No decisive settlement in-thread.

O4. “Bookmark and read later.”
* Status: Contested
* It’s a practical rebuttal to smartphone/readability; Greg never re-engages, but his initial complaint stands as disagreement.

O5. “If Reddit didn’t intend long posts, max characters would be shorter; this is under max.”
* Status: Contested
* It’s a “platform design implies legitimacy” argument; Greg’s “NYT article” is a disagreement about norms, not capability.

O6. “If you can’t specify what’s drowning, you can’t claim it’s unjustified; if you can, say what to cut.”
* Status: In question (leaning OP-favored)
* Why “in question” and not “unquestioned”? Because Greg did make the drowning claim (so O6 is challenged in spirit).
* Why “leaning OP-favored”? Because Greg never supplies the requested specifics; OP’s objection remains standing.

(If you prefer a stricter interpretation: you can mark O6 as “Contested,” but the key point is: '''OP’s demand for specifics is never answered''', so it functions as a standing critique of Greg’s original “drowning” claim.)

===== O7. “You’re breaking the rules with this comment.” =====
* Status: Unquestioned (given M2)
* Before your update, this was debatable. With M2 (ban for rule-breaking) as standing context, OP’s “rules were broken” claim is no longer floating — moderators acted in line with it.

O8. “You’re deflecting from my points rather than engaging fairly.”
* Status: Unquestioned (strengthened by M2)
* Greg never returns to substance; his responses are tone/incredulity/exit. The ban outcome supports that this interaction style wasn’t acceptable there.

O9. “Assuming defensiveness rather than clarification + criticism being criticized is bad faith / ineffective good faith.”
* Status: Unquestioned (in-thread)
* Greg never defends his inference or engages the substance; he exits. M2 reinforces the general “behavior issue” framing (though “bad faith” as motive is still interpretive).

O10. “This is your only warning.”
* Status: Unquestioned
* It happened; nobody disputes.

O11. “Read the second half; it covers what just happened and why it won’t be tolerated.”
* Status: Unquestioned
* Greg doesn’t counter-argue; he disengages.

O12. “ ‘Defensive, much?’ is itself a form of being defensive.”
* Status: Unquestioned
* No rebuttal appears.

===== O13. “You tripled down on appeal to authority, arrogance, ridicule, condescension.” =====
* Status: Unquestioned (so far)
* Greg doesn’t reply to refute specifics; M2 supports the idea something was rule-incompatible, but doesn’t prove these exact labels.

O14. “Your self-deceit makes it hard to believe you can teach others what you can’t do.”
* Status: Unquestioned (so far)
* Again: no counter from Greg in provided text.

O15. “If you can’t handle your criticism being criticized, this isn’t the place for you.”
* Status: Unquestioned (and aligned with Rule 3’s explicit line)
* This is basically a restatement of the rule text.

Important caveat about OP’s last stretch (O13–O15):
Even if those claims are “unquestioned in-thread,” some of them edge into Rule 2 territory themselves (personal/character attacks). If OP is a mod, that’s a different context; if OP is not, Rule 11 (“don’t act as an unofficial mod”) could also be relevant. We can’t resolve that from what you’ve provided, but it’s worth noting as rule-fit ambiguity, not “who’s right.”