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

==== These are the claims that currently have standing objections against them (and those objections have not been answered back yet, since the debate “ends now”). ====

===== - Greg: “It’s 10x too many words / NYT Sunday edition / smartphone NO.” Standing objection: OP’s pinned-guide / purpose / workaround / “specify what to cut” counterpoints were not engaged with by Greg. =====
* Greg: “You gotta be kidding me lol” (OP’s enforcement is absurd). Standing objection: OP frames enforcement as rule-based + the ban context you added supports “rule-breaking” as the reason, not “absurdity.”

===== These were directly rebutted by OP, and SReflection hasn’t replied: =====
* “Feels AI-generated and unpruned; obvious to anyone who’s used AI.” Standing objection: OP: inaccurate; significant human authorship/editing; challenges “feels→obvious” jump.
* “If you didn’t put time in, people won’t think it’s worth their time.” (implying OP didn’t) Standing objection: OP: did put in many hours; detailed effort described.
* “Prose is far longer than it should be.” Standing objection: OP: “should” asserts a normative standard without argument (“is–ought” critique).
* “Better structure is separate threads rather than an omnibus.” Standing objection: OP: “better” is subjective and asserted without proof; rejects “universal standard” framing.
* “Instead of flow chart into text, create a graphic.” Standing objection: OP: mischaracterization—no flowchart; graphic would still be text-heavy.
* “List spam; organize it.” Standing objection: OP: lists are purposeful; already organized by sections/subsections.
* “Overly long meandering reply / gish gallop.” Standing objection: OP: not gish gallop; no time pressure; asks for specifics of what was false/misleading.
* “Using mod powers to censure because they won’t respond to the gish gallop.” Standing objection: OP: enforcement was rule-based; warning given; plus your added context (ban for rule-breaking) undercuts “censure for non-response.”

Those are the “knock-out” candidates under your closure procedure.