I feel somewhat disappointed with what SaidIt is, and I don't think I'd feel that way if it had been promoted more accurately to me. I'm writing this to suggest more accurate ways for any readers to describe SaidIt when promoting or suggesting it to others.

tl;dr: The pyramid of debate rule is meant to promote high-quality fact-based discussion, but is inconsistent with free speech. Call it what it is so people join with the right expectations.

---

I had thought SaidIt was basically an alternative to reddit except people could speak freely and wouldn't be censored, or something like that, but now that I've looked around some, with its pyramid of debate rules SaidIt reminds me more of my favorite debate subs from reddit, /r/changemyview and others like /r/TMBR (test my belief, reddit!) and /r/ExplainBothSides. Which makes sense, if it was originally born as antiextremes.com.

Would I consider those debate subs valuable, and places you can discuss almost any topic fairly openly? Yes! Would I consider them free speech platforms? No, debate and this sort of hard-fact-based interaction is only one of many ways people interact with each other and their environment. I don't think a platform that seeks to only support that kind of interaction, and even bans people for engaging in other kinds of interaction, can be said to be a free speech platform.

Banning people for violating the pyramid of debate rules also seems incredibly open to abuse. It looks clear enough laid out like like it is, but I'm reminded of interactions I've had in other online spaces with rules that also seemed clear enough. E.g. from my experience: "You're not allowed say things opposing the LGBT narrative because that's political, and this isn't a place for politics" "No, constant demeaning of anyone who opposes LGBT and display of LGBT flags isn't political, that's just a normal part of life." "No politics" was used to enforce one political environment there even though I didn't think that's what "no politics" means. It seems easy for this pyramid rule, too, to be used to suppress discussion. I don't think someplace with a rule like this can really claim to be a free speech platform. Others have expressed concern about this rule too. And the tone magnora7 chose to reply with concerns me and reminds me of people I feel have (I believe unfairly) banned me in the past. Again, as I said above I think a platform of this style could be valuable, but I don't think it's a free speech platform.

And it appears that, at least currently, the pyramid rule is already not being enforced uniformly. One of the things that I think made /r/changemyview work so well was its clear and consistently enforced rules. That doesn't currently seem to be the case here. I've already gotten several down-pyramid interactions, some from users with an established pattern of this style of interaction (a: 1, 2, 3, 4; b: 1, 2, 3). I know that at least one user and one sub have been banned for down-pyramid interactions, so why some and not others? Why does one of the creators himself not seem to take the pyramid rule seriously? A banning rule that's already being enforced inconsistently seems like an even more serious problem than a banning rule that's only possibly open to abuse.

I still have difficulty understanding this rule. Does content get removed if it's down-pyramid? How many warnings do people get? Is the de-facto current reality that nobody really cares? If it's a rule, why are there exhortions to the community to raise the level of debate, instead of simply enforcing the rules? If it's merely an un-enforced cultural guideline that everyone here is invited to participate in and strive towards, why do people sometimes get banned for not following it?

I also don't feel here the way I feel on more free speech forums. I find myself expecting that people won't do down-pyramid stuff because they're not supposed to, feeling angry and annoyed when I do see it, reporting it, and wanting to see the content taken down. I don't feel that way in other forums I've been in where it's expected that people can just say whatever they want. I have a much easier time just ignoring stuff if it's not what I want to talk about and participating in whatever way I'm interested in participating. Here, I feel more like I do on /r/changemyview: I expect the rules to be enforced and try to get them to be enforced, and I also respect that others can add their viewpoint and have their say as long as it's within the boundaries of the rules.

It seems there is some inconsistency in what SaidIt is trying to be. I don't think it's possible to both provide a full alternative to reddit, and be a site that seriously maintains a high level of discussion as defined by the pyramid. (Similarly as to how /r/changemyview could not maintain the quality of interactions there if it tried to include all kinds of discussion.) And it seems clear to me which the creators are interested in cultivating here.

So communicate that to potential users! "SaidIt is a reddit-like site attempting to cultivate high-quality fact-based discussion," or "Come join our SaidIt sub where we try to keep conversation high-quality and fact-based" rather than "SaidIt is a free speech reddit alternative" or "SaidIt is where you should go if you got kicked off reddit". And some tag lines I think would be more appropriate than the current "say your truth": "debate your truth," "fact-based talk," "let's talk facts." It will help the people who are interested in this kind of community find where they belong, and people who are interested in something else will have an easier time going somewhere that's right for them.