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

==== ### ====

G1. “Post is drowned by 10x too many words for a subreddit post.”
* Status: In question
* Standing objection: OP’s purpose/format defense (pinned guide, onboarding, necessity) remains unrebutted at the content level.

G2. “This is a NYT Sunday edition article.” (genre mismatch)
* Status: In question
* Standing objection: OP: it’s a pinned guide; long-form is intentional and justified.

G3. “Reading on a smartphone is a NO.”
* Status: In question
* Standing objection: OP provides workaround + implies the burden isn’t universal.

G4. “First half is 100% spot on.”
* Status: Unquestioned
* OP doesn’t dispute.

G5. “First half should be the standard model for understanding AI therapy.”
* Status: Unquestioned
* OP doesn’t rebut this claim (they mainly argue about length/format and behavior).

===== G6. “OP is defensive.” (“Defensive, much?”) =====
* Status: In question
* Standing objection: OP directly denies and reframes it as clarification + calls Greg’s move deflection/rule-breaking.
* **And now M2 (ban) further supports that Greg’s engagement style violated norms, which makes this “tone-policing” move even less stable as a standing critique.

G7. “OP’s enforcement is ridiculous/absurd.” (“You gotta be kidding me lol.”)
* Status: In question
* Standing objection: OP frames Greg’s remark as deflection/bad faith and ties it to explicit community expectations; plus M2 supports that moderators ultimately sided with “this behavior is out of bounds.”

G8. “Block me please.” (request to disengage)
* Status: Unquestioned
* No one disputes he asked to be blocked.

Net effect of the ban (M2) on Greg’s side:
It most strongly undermines Greg’s style-based critiques (G6–G7), because the moderation outcome aligns with OP’s claim that Greg’s style violated the sub’s standards. It does not automatically falsify G1–G3, but it does suggest Greg’s way of participating was judged unacceptable.