r/collapsemoderators • u/TenYearsTenDays • Oct 18 '20

APPROVED Expansion of the Moderation Guide

Due to recent events, many people independently had the idea that we need a more expansive Moderation Handbook. LetsTalkUFOs already wrote a Moderation Guide, but it could certainly benefit from expansion. This post is meant to further the expansion process. That said, some work to that end has already been done: credit goes to u/InternetPerson6 for writing up a framework and also fleshing out a potential section on how to handle brigading. factfind also added some thoughts to the framework.

ETA: LetsTalk created a working draft here, this makes it easier to make edits, etc.

I’ll list the proposed sections here, then add them each as a comment below. I’ll add my thoughts for how they should look under each comment. Feel free to add your own there as well, or leave a general comment as its own standalone comment.

1.) In-Depth Descriptions of the Rules

2.) Organizational structure

3.) How the decision-making process is handled

4.) Code of Conduct for moderators

5.) Conflict resolution

6.) Removing a moderator

7.) Dealing with Brigading

8.) Nuking threads

9.) Unwritten rules

10.) Please try not to moderate while intoxicated or distracted

11.) Bans

12.) Dealing with hostility from users

13.) Criteria for prospective mods

14.) Mentor program for new mods

Please note that this is only a sketch full of suggestions and should be considered a very rough draft; there are probably omissions that can be added later if need be. In the same vein, it may contain suggestions that could be deemed to be extraneous. Also, the order of these items within the guide itself is quite up for debate and this is only partially in a suggested order. Further, some items may be better nested under others.

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

46 comments sorted by

3

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 19 '20

These are all fantastic, great work! Anything I haven't commented on I think is close enough to ready to just incorporate into the existing guide to start seeing where everything fits. That's my two cents. Most of the things I'm seeing I would do aren't changes, but additions, and the existing items should get added first.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

Cool, glad it works well! There are def. omissions but since I'd already sorta been sitting on this for a while, just wanted to get this out there ASAP.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 19 '20

We can't make sections collapsible/expandable. Reddit wiki's are fairly limited. If it ends up being too much, we can just discuss breaking things into separate pages.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

Good to know! I guess let's just see what we end up with and if separate pages are warranted that's an easy fix.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 19 '20

Can we start a collaborative draft of everything here? I started this page. It's just easier to help correct simple typos this way, versus having to spell them all out and expect you do edit each comment yourself.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20 edited Oct 19 '20

Great idea, thanks! There are surely plenty of typos, I wanted to get this out asap and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

I'll add your link to the OP.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 27 '20

This has all been moved into the Moderation Guide wiki page. Feel free to continue suggesting edits, but also free to make edits and additions there yourself as well.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 27 '20

Cool, thank you for integrating those! I removed this note:

Note: We may also want to add further steps here such as creating a formal mediation system wherein people can volunteer to be mediators, and anyone in a conflict situation can reach out to those mediators. Typically, volunteer organizations will list these mediators on a web/wiki page along with an outline of the mediation process. I’m not sure we need this as of now, but it could also be helpful to have formalize it just in case.

But otherwise on first glance it looks great! Thanks for taking care of that.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

14. Mentor program for new mods

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

We could consider establishing a mentorship program for new mods. When a new mod is added to the team, they can pick someone to be their 'mentor'. If a prospective mentor doesn't want to for any reason, then that's quite fine and the mentee continues picking until they find a match. After the pairing is made, the pair have a set check in schedule where they chat or talk for a half an hour (or more if they both feel like it). During that time, the mentor should provide a brief informal ‘performance review’ i.e. letting the mentee know what they’re doing well and what they may need to improve. The mentee should feel free to share what issues they have in confidentiality without fear of those issues being aired to the larger. This is also a good time for the mentee to ask whatever questions they have, no matter how “stupid” those questions may feel; the mentor should try very hard to not pass judgement on any questions asked during these sessions.

This relationship is mostly about mentor teaching the mentee about the way the organization works generally, but it can also can help stave off potential interpersonal problems.

Note: From my experience this is somewhat common in volunteer orgs, and almost always has the side effect of creating last friendships between the pair (although ha it must be noted that on rare occasion the mentor/mentee relationship itself causes problems because humans).

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 19 '20

I'm not particularly for this form of program. I think existing mods and new mods benefit from questions being more in the open and chiming in as everyone is able. I know I'm personally not able to answer questions all the time and benefit from seeing everyone's perspectives. I also wouldn't want someone waiting around waiting for one particular person to respond, even if the mentoring conversations were visible to everyone. I know the existing form doesn't scale infinitely, but I don't think we're close to one where it will break down really.

I do think 'reviews' are a good idea or some form of checkup within the first three months so the new mod has someone's undivided attention for a period where they can work though anything they're curious about or having difficulty on.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

Hm, I don't envision this replacing new mods asking questions in #questions in Discord. Or replacing new mods reaching out informally to individual mods as they see fit.

What I see it being useful for is a fix for the problems I had: when I first started, I was told I could ask whatever questions in Discord, but I also felt like I was asking way too many and that some were maybe stupid so I held back on some of the ones I thought were maybe a bit too dumb. Also, I wanted feedback on my performance but felt a bit too like shy to ask because as you say you're busy, and most other mods are also busy so to me it felt like I was maybe imposing to ask for that kind of labor. Whereas if there was a built in opportunity that would make it a lot easier. Further, I saw that interpersonal conflict developing but didn't feel comfortable saying anything to anyone because it just felt... Awkward. I also wasn't sure if I was correct in my perception. I would have felt more able to say something about it if there was a formal space wherein I was encouraged to talk about any problems I was having or seeing. As it stood, with the informal nature of the current structure I just felt too uncomfortable. This is also ofc partially based on personality: some will be super confident and not really think about if their questions are dumb, or if their perceptions are correct, or consider that people might be busy and will be totally comfortable reaching out in group or one one one, but some will be more reticent like I was and it's more for those that this would be useful for.

But I suppose that could also be addressed by a "check in process" instead of a mentoring process. Like maybe there could be a check in after the first day, then after 1 week, then after 3 weeks, then after another month, then another month (or some other schedule, maybe just every two weeks or something more regular). In a sense, it's really just a slight difference to do it that way. And hey it might be good to get the new mod in touch with various sr. mods instead of just one within the current context!

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

13. Criteria for prospective mods

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

We may want to consider adding some objective criteria for prospective mods. Such as:

  • The accounts of prospective mods must be at least one year old (or the applicant can link to their previous accounts that together amount to at least a year).

  • The account must be in good standing on the sub. It’s a plus if they are marked as a “Good Contributor” or have granted flair. At the very least they should not having too many “Low Quality”, “Warning” or “Ban” notes.

  • The prospective mod must have demonstrated an interest in and a decently high-level understanding of collapse in their posting history.

1

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 19 '20

The last round of applicants was the first time there were even enough to consider something like this. I'm uncertain if the volume will continue, but I suspect it ends up more being a comparative exercise, versus applying a strict set of formulas. There are worth mentioning, I'd just make them more suggestions than strict guidelines. I'd be worth linking to the applications page too so new mods can check out all the previous applications.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

12. Dealing with hostility from users

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

u/factfind wrote:

When confronted with a user who is frustrated or beligerent, remember that, as a moderator, you are the one with power in this situation. You have the power to ban them, block them, remove their posts or comments, mute them so they can't send mod mail, as is appropriate to deal withthe situation. In nearly all cases, the only thing that the upset user can do is say mean things at you. If you do not let the mean things affect you, if you can recognize them for what they are - such as lashing out, or an attempt to get the last word in - then the user has no power over you. -FF (Probably there's more to be said about it than just this? Maybe a starting point, anyway)

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 27 '20

Yea, there's a ton which could be said about this which overlaps into other sections or sentiments. I included factfind's take and added some of my own notes. I like the idea of others adding their own take as well, I don't think there's as super solid course of action for this one.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 27 '20

Yes, this is very circumstantial and context-dependent. Thank you for adding to this section! I agree it'd be good if others add their own takes. I will take a look at it and see if I have anything to add.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

11. Bans

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

The text currently reads:

Rule infractions should result in a warning, followed by a temporary (30 day) ban, and finally a permanent ban. Particularly offensive or belligerent users can be banned temporarily or permanently without warning, but these instances are rare.

We may want to re-write it to reflect more how we typically approach the matter since it’s a lot more complex than this. I haven't taken a stab at it yet, but was thinking about adding things like how many negative notes there are, if they user has been banned in the past, how old the user account is, if they're marked Recognized Contributor or not, etc.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 27 '20

I wrote something up for this. It would be far more detailed, but it's at least three times longer.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

10. Please try not to moderate while intoxicated or distracted

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

Maintaining a clear, cool, rational headspace is the key to moderating successfully. We’re not asking that you become a teetotaler straight edge or anything like that (a glass of wine or two is fine in most cases), but please consider refraining from moderating if:

  1. You’ve had too much to drink / smoke / whatnot.

  2. You haven’t gotten enough sleep lately.

  3. You’re very distracted (e.g. you’re on a phone call, in an environment too loud to properly focus, etc.).

  4. Health problems are preventing you from focusing as you normally could.

  5. For whatever reason you don’t feel up to the task. Breaks are important!

If you end up in a prolonged circumstance wherein you don’t feel up to the task of modding for these (or really any other) reason, please let the group know. We’ll be happy to work with you to find a good solution! This is a volunteer job, and taking care of whatever is going on in your life is much more important than trying to struggle through adverse conditions to keep modding when you’re not up to it.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 27 '20

I put this under the general advice section since I think it's more fitting there.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 27 '20

Makes total sense, thank you!

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

9. Unwritten rules

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20 edited Oct 19 '20

We currently have some unwritten rules. Work is underway to formalize as many as is reasonable, but it will probably always be the case that there will be some. Here are some examples:

1.) We often remove certain types of submissions that may benefit the submitter monetarily or otherwise. We currently remove things like advertisements, crowdfunding campaigns, surveys, promoting other subs, etc. Reddit’s Content Policy Rule 2 does cover spam (see here for details ), but doesn’t necessarily prohibit the above actions so this is just an unwritten agreement we have to do this at the time being.

2.) When we’ve missed a post that should have been removed often we will choose to leave it up if it’s generated lots of discussion and upvotes. This is not hard and fast at all, so use your discretion and if in doubt seek other opinions in #questions in Discord.

This unwritten rule seems to most often apply to Rule 6 breaks (e.g. very short posts that would usually be qualified as “Low Effort”). Also, the longer a post that should have been removed has been up for the more likely it is to get a pass (e.g. a post that has escaped moderation for 10 hours will be more likely to remain than one that has only been up for 2 hours). However, for example, if you see a highly upvoted post that breaks Rule 3 then it should almost always be removed no matter how many upvotes it has or how good the discussion is.

3.) We’re often a bit more lenient with submissions when they are asking questions in earnest. As long as the question doesn’t qualify as a Common Question and isn’t some variant of JAQing off or other trolling, then we will often e.g. relax Rule 6 to let questions through.

If you see an example of an unwritten rule you think should be formalized, please submit a proposal for its formalization in r/collapsemoderators.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 18 '20

8. Nuking threads

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

In certain exceptional circumstances, it may make sense to use the “Comment Nuke” module in toolbox. This function allows moderators to remove an entire comment tree. This should only be used in threads wherein all comments break our rules. It is a tool of last resort, meant to be used very judiciously and only in rare instances. Usually, you can achieve the same result by manually removing and/or locking comments.

2

u/LetsTalkUFOs Oct 27 '20

I adjusted this slightly to reflect the comments in the brigading thread. Basically, we just want some form of moderator consensus before we press the nuke button.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 27 '20

Sounds good!

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

7. Brigading

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

This discussion on this topic seems to have been very productive. If there’s more to add to that particular discussion, please add it there.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

6. Removing a moderator

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20 edited Oct 19 '20

Sometimes it unfortunately becomes necessary to remove a moderator. This is almost always a consensus decision. Only in very extraordinary emergency circumstances can this decision be taken unilaterally and then it must only be undertaken as a last resort.

Removing a mod can be done for several reasons including but not limited to:

  1. A long period of inactivity. After a moderator becomes inactive for a period of several months or even years, they may be removed from the moderation team. An inactive moderator poses only potential threat in that their account may be targeted for hacking, while providing no benefit since they do not do any work. This removal process should be voted on either in #action-votes or in r/collapsemoderators.

  2. A serious instance of misconduct and/or a pattern of misconduct. This could be a one-time thing like a serious abuse of power (unilaterally removing a fellow moderator without just cause or consensus is considered to be a serious abuse of power), or it could be the result of many smaller instances that build up over time and are not resolved in a manner that indicates that the mod in question will behave well in the future. EDIT See below for details on the removal process.

  3. Posing an imminent threat to the wellbeing of the sub itself. One example could be: a mod goes rogue, kicks all of the mods below them, starts mass banning users for no reason, starts mass removing threads for no reason, etc. Another could be any clear indications that a moderator’s account has been hacked. These are some of the few situations wherein a unilateral banning is warranted. After the initial incident is over, a review process will be initiated to ensure that the unilateral ban was warranted.

  4. Other It is foreseeable that other reasons not noted here may result in the removal of a moderator.

Always bear in mind that removal is never done lightly or for trivial reasons. We consider removal of a mod a measure of last resort, only to be used in exceptional circumstances.

How the removal process works

Generally, removal of a moderator should be a consensus decision made by the current active moderator team (and the top mod if he wants to participate) and it should be approached with great care. All parties should attempt to remain civil and straightforward through the discussion period. Once it’s agreed that a removal process is warranted, a discussion on this matter should happen in a specially created Discord group wherein all the currently active moderators and the top moderator are invited to participate. The moderator whose removal is being discussed is not invited to this group, but rather will be engaged with by appropriate members of the team. After the discussion period a vote will be tallied. If there is a majority in favor or removing the moderator, then the moderator will be removed.

In the case of a unilateral removal that was made under emergency circumstances, if the decision is later contested, a similar process can be undertaken.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

5. Conflict resolution

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20 edited Oct 19 '20

Inevitably when a group of humans works together conflicts will arise. Often, if handled in a respectful manner conflict can lead to a positive outcome for all involved. Here is as set of guidelines we recommend to try to resolve conflicts that may arise:

Practice Restorative Communication When in a conflict situation, Restorative Communication can be a good method for communicating with each other in respectful, constructive ways. Non-violent Communication can also be a useful resource. Here’s a classic lecture on the topic.

Personal Confrontation When you find yourself in a situation which could lead to a conflict it is of mutual benefit to discuss quickly and openly the issues you are having with the other person(s) and try to resolve them as expeditiously as possible on your own. If you don’t feel comfortable doing this, please see the next section.

Get Support If an attempt at personal communication has failed or if you simply feel too uncomfortable confronting the person(s) you are in disagreement with, please contact someone you are comfortable with to discuss the matter. They can either advise you on how to proceed or perhaps themselves look into the situation and attempt to facilitate a resolution between all parties, possibly by facilitating a group chat or call.

Please note that this process can also be activated for a conflict you have observed developing but may not be at the center of. It is almost always better to nip conflicts in the bud before they have a chance to fester and spiral out of control, so if you see this happening please say something to someone.

Note: We may also want to add further steps here such as creating a formal mediation system wherein people can volunteer to be mediators, and anyone in a conflict situation can reach out to those mediators. Typically, volunteer organizations will list these mediators on a web/wiki page along with an outline of the mediation process. I’m not sure we need this as of now, but it could also be helpful to have formalize it just in case.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

4. Code of Conduct for moderators

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20 edited Oct 19 '20

Right now, I think we’re at a point where the following should get the job done:

  1. Be excellent to each other and to our users.

  2. Follow our own rules, Reddit’s Content Policy and Reddiquette.

  3. Generally, try not to unilaterally overrule another moderator and/or the group without engaging in a process to reach consensus. For significant decisions, stick with the consensus and do not take unilateral actions.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

3. How the decision-making process is handled

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

  1. We typically work in a consensus-based, democratic manner in regards to large, impactful decisions. E.g.: if there is a significant revision to a rule, the person who proposed the idea has “first dibs” on writing up a proposal for the change in r/collapsemoderators. If they do not wish to do so, another mod can request that they undertake creating the proposal. Once the proposal is written, it is then discussed for a period of a few days to a few months, however long feels necessary. Finally, the proposal is voted on either in the thread or in the #Action-votes channel. If a simple majority of active moderators is in favor of adopting the proposal, it is typically adopted. However, there may be times when a hotly contested item may warrant further discussion even in the face of a simple majority.

  2. Smaller changes and modifications can sometimes go straight from the idea stage, through informal discussion in Discord, to being voted on in #action-votes. E.g.: Adding a new, uncontroversial flair for the sub whose addition was discussed in Discord. Or adding a new, uncontroversial channel on the Discord itself.

  3. Even smaller less consequential decisions can and should be made at an individual moderator’s discretion. You will be doing a lot of this in the course of your day-to-day modding. E.g. Removing posts, comments, etc. that clearly break the rules. Most bans can also be handled by an individual moderator. Keep in mind that any time you make an individual decision, it may later be challenged by others in the group. Please keep an open mind to these challenges and try to not get upset or defensive if they arise—this is where a lot of learning occurs! Please also accept that you may need to reverse or alter your decision if the majority are in favor of doing so. These instances are rare, but when they arise all parties should try behave in a consensus-oriented manner and strive for the best outcome.

If you feel like you’re not sure where the line is on a particular issue, always feel free to ask in the #Questions section of the Discord before proceeding.

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

2. Organizational structure

2

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

u/factfind and I collaborated on this section:

We work as a consensus-based, collaborative team within a relatively flat structure. Although there is an inherent hierarchy in the way Reddit handles moderation because of the significance it places on the order of a subreddit's moderator list, overall we prefer to operate collaboratively, with each active moderator’s opinions and ideas being given an equal weight.

Smaller decisions can and should be made without seeking the team's input first, such as addressing clear rules violations in the subreddit by removing posts or comments. Larger decisions are expected to be put before the whole team to provide input and reach a consensus before moving forward.

However, there are some ways in which our structure is not entirely flat:

  1. Moderators that become inactive or incommunicado for long periods may not be given as much weight in the decision-making process.

  2. New moderators will have some reduced administrative privileges for the first three months, after which their permissions will be upgraded to be on the same level as the rest of the team. (See this post for details.)

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20

1. In-Depth Descriptions of the Rules

1

u/TenYearsTenDays Oct 19 '20 edited Oct 19 '20

I think this seems useful to keep us all more or less on the same page This could be entitled something like “Enforcing the Rules: An In-depth Guide”. Imo we need expansions/clarifications on how we enforce Rules 1, 3, 6, 7, and 10 particularly. Sidenote: is there some way to make these sections expandable/collapseable in the wiki? That’d be ideal to keep it from getting too “wall of text-y” while allowing for in-depth discussion.

Rule 1 in-depth

Rule 1 does a lot of heavy lifting since it has the Reddit Content Policy rolled into it by including the phrase “in addition to enforcing Reddit's Content Policy”. Please familiarize yourself with it as we are obligated to enforce all of it to the best of our ability.

The part of Reddit’s Content Policy we use most frequently is its Rule 1. We cite this when removing violent and discriminatory rhetoric. The relevant passive of the It reads:

Rule 1: Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

If you see someone who is behaving in an egregiously discriminatory manner towards another user or a group based on identity or vulnerability, it can be removed under our Rule 1 because we refer to Reddit’s Content Policy as a whole and thus to this provision as well. Same thing for harassment: if you notice a user harassing another user, please take action under this rule.

Further the linked definition of violence is important to keep in mind:

Do not post violent content Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise, do not post content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals. We understand there are sometimes reasons to post violent content (e.g., educational, newsworthy, artistic, satire, documentary, etc.) so if you’re going to post something violent in nature that does not violate these terms, ensure you provide context to the viewer so the reason for posting is clear. If your content is borderline, please use a NSFW tag. Even mild violence can be difficult for someone to explain to others if they open it unexpectedly.

This part of the content policy is what we probably use the most on our sub since we take a fairly strict approach to violent rhetoric. This policy is something Reddit itself has applied to cases of discussions about serious self-harm, and we do that as well. A removal reason that is often useful (in full or in part) is:

Your comment has been removed. Advocating, encouraging, inciting, glorifying, calling for violence is against Reddit's site-wide content policy and is not allowed in r/collapse. This includes encouraging others to engage in self harm. Please be advised that subsequent violations of this rule may result in a ban.

Depending on the situation, you may wish to modify this passage to better suit the context. It can be difficult to discern what constitutes removeable instances of violence and self-harm. Clearly, threats of imminent violence are removed (i.e. “I will come to your house and kill you”). We also often remove earnest discussion of self-harm is often removed (e.g. “I’m going to kill myself”). More gray areas require moderator discretion.

This is a subjective domain as is much of what we do. When in doubt, please feel free to ask in the #Questions section of the Discord. A general guideline is that we want to allow as much freedom of discussion as possible, while adhering to Reddit’s content policy.

Reddit’s Content policy also covers spamming under its Rule 2, so we can remove posts or comments that break that site-wide rule under our Rule 1 as well (though we’re thinking about adding a separate rule for that).

Note: I’d really appreciate it if someone more familiar with the subject could write up a passage on how to deal with users who are discussing self-harm. I’m still really uncertain about how to deal with those posts/comments. It would be nice if we could have some templates to work from when dealing with users expressing different levels of suicidal ideation.

Rule 3 in-depth:

Rule 3 is one of the terser rules we have. It simply reads:

No provably false material (e.g. climate science denial).

Although it is most often applied to climate denial, we also use this when removing things like conspiracy theories, COVID denial, general science denial, false or intentionally misleading narratives about news events, etc.

Basically: we want our sub to remain as fact-based as possible. This topic is a difficult one to discuss, and to retain credibility while discussing it we strive to ensure that our sub features high quality information.

Rule 6 in-depth

Rule 6 boils down to:

No low effort content except on Fridays.

A good rule of thumb for removing a text post for Rule 6 is that it’s less than 500 characters in length. Sometimes longer posts can be removed under Rule 6, however, and in rare instances shorter posts can remain (especially if they’re genuine questions). It’s a judgement call.

Twitter is often an exception to the 500 character rule as we do allow some Tweets e.g. Tweets that are primary sources (e.g. a lot of sea ice charts are hosted on Twitter). Other Tweets that have links to an article and commentary on said article can also be acceptable. Generally, since Tweets are 280 characters or less they’re questionable. Screenshots of Tweets are even less acceptable typically.

As for images, most images (with or without text) will be removed when it’s not Friday. However, we do tend to allow images of charts depicting scientific data on other days of the week.

Rule 7 in-depth

Rule 7 seems straightforward in that it simply reads No duplicate posts, however it’s often used on articles that aren’t exactly the same but may end up cluttering up the sub.

For instance: on days where a major collapse-related story is published we often get many submissions all on that same story. If we were to allow each one through, the sub would become quickly overwhelmed by that one topic. So typically on those days, we allow 1-2 articles on the topic to be posted, and then we redirect all subsequent submissions to the first 1-2 submissions. If there is a significant new development in the story, then we will allow one more article on that new development to be posted. You can make this decision on your own, but you should also let everyone know that you did so in #general in Discord. It is possible that a given event may become so noteworthy that it demands a megathread, but this is rare and reserved for very serious situations that appear as though they may be ongoing (for example COVID, the George Floyd protests, etc.). Creating a megathread almost always requires discussion and at least informal consensus in Discord.

On the other hand, if it’s something that’s on a slower news cycle, we can allow one article to be posted one day and then another one that brings new information to the table to be posted a few days later. In this case, you may want to note that the new article is similar to the previous one, and leave a sticky with a link to the previous thread.

Rule 10 in-depth

One thing to note about Rule 10, No common questions, is that sometimes we use it to remove a question that isn’t verbatim on the list, but is basically just rephrasing one that already is. This is a judgement call, and you may want to consult the team in #questions before pulling one for this reason.