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

==== SR11. “As an aside, the commenter isn’t wrong: you have a tremendous issue taking criticism positively.” ====
* Status: Contested
* Why: OP previously denied “defensiveness” and framed their responses as clarification + standards enforcement (OP-D4, OP-B2, OP-B6). That challenges the “you can’t take criticism” framing.
* But: SR11 also adds an independent endorsement of Greg’s earlier tone-critique (Greg-C1), giving it new support.

SR12. “You don’t need to take down everyone who disagrees with your opinion with an overly long meandering reply…”
* Status: Unquestioned (so far)
* Why: No one has yet directly disputed the behavioral characterization (“take down everyone,” “meandering reply”), though it’s clearly an evaluative/charged description.

SR13. “…then try to use mod powers to censure them when they’re not willing to respond to the gish gallop.”
* Status: In question (given your added context about the ban + rules)
* Why: You provided new standing context: Greg was banned for breaking the sub’s rules. If we accept that as a standing, unchallenged fact in our analysis context, then “censure because they won’t respond” is undercut: it suggests the moderation wasn’t about refusing to respond, but about rule-violating behavior.
* In other words: M2 (ban for rule-breaking) is a standing objection to SR13’s “unjust censure” framing. Since SR13 hasn’t rebutted M2 (and can’t yet, because we don’t see SR13 acknowledging it), SR13 is currently in question.

SR14. “Just accept the critique and thank people for their time and interest.”
* Status: Unquestioned (so far)
* Why: It’s advice; nobody has argued against it yet.