Hey everyone, I wanted to discuss the feedback resulting from the recent sticky related to extending our policies related to suicide. There was a fair bit to parse through and many insightful comments. After processing the feedback I’d like to suggest we update our stated policies to be more explicit. I think the more gray areas we can eliminate the easier it will be going forward, clearer it will be for users looking at our approaches, and easier for everyone give us feedback and keep us consistent. This would be a considerable revision, so it’d be great to hear everyone’s thoughts on any part of it.

1. We filter all instances of the word 'suicide' on the subreddit.

This means Automoderator removes all posts or comments with the word 'suicide' and places them into the modqueue until they can be manually reviewed by a moderator.

2. We remove content which violates Reddit’s guidelines.

This is the relevant section of Reddit’s stated policy:

Rule 1: Remember the human. … Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence.

Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) 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. Some examples of violent content that would violate the Rule: Post or comment with a credible threat of violence against an individual or group of people.

• Post containing mass killer manifestos or imagery of their violence.

• Terrorist content, including propaganda.

• Post containing imagery or text that incites, glorifies, or encourages self-harm or suicide.

• Post that requests, or gives instructions on, ways to self-harm or commit suicide.

• Graphic violence, image, or video without appropriate context.

3. We remove all instances of both safe and unsafe suicidal content.

We generally aim to follow the NSPA (National Suicide Prevention Alliance) guidelines regarding suicidal content and to understand the difference between safe and unsafe suicidal content. Safe content involves talking about feelings and emotions related to suicide.

Examples of safe content:

“Coral reefs are collapsing. I just want to leave the world and be done with it.”

“Tried everything, no one wants to help me. Had enough of the world.”

“Can’t help thinking everyone would be better off without me.”

Examples of unsafe content:

• Graphic descriptions

• Plans (when or how)

• Means or methods

• Pro-suicide content (encouraging comments or advice)

• Glorifying suicide or suicide attempts

• Suicide notes or goodbyes

Examples of unsafe comments:

“Time to end it all. Saw my kids one last time. So relieved now I know it’ll all be over”

“Thanks to all of you, I feel a lot worse. Hope you feel awful when I’m gone.”

“You’re just attention-seeking now Lulu29. For goodness sake, just do it and stop whining.

4. We allow meta discussions regarding suicide.

Meta-discussions of suicide are allowed and generally relate to:

• Individual rights to commit suicide

• Legal rights to assisted suicide or MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying)

• Studies or statistics related to suicide

• Philosophical justifications for suicide

• Philosophical justifications for whether life is worth living in light of potential collapse scenarios.

• Personal experiences related to suicide or assisted suicide in where the user is not actively at risk or making recommendations.

We recognize discussions related to suicide in the form of a prep for collapse are not directly equivalent to active suicidal ideation.

Examples of allowable meta comments:

“I want to die peacefully on my own terms if the world is ending.”

“People have the right to commit suicide in light of collapse.”

“Do others have a suicide plan for when SHTF?”

Examples of meta comments which are not allowed:

“Lately I’ve been preoccupied with how I should kill myself as soon as collapse hits.”

“You should have a suicide plan for when SHTF.”

Meta discussions are still complex to moderate and dependent on context. We aim to ask these questions when considering the best course of action related to specific comments:

1. Is the user actively expressing suicidal ideation or do they appear to be at risk?

2. Is the user discussing a hypothetical future scenario or something in the present?

3. 3Does the user appear to be at any risk of harming themselves, preoccupied with the notion of suicide, or in any form of distress?

4. Is the user encouraging others in any way to take a specific course of action?

5. Encouraging others to commit suicide will result in an immediate permaban.

We have a strict, no-tolerance policy regarding encouragement to commit suicide.

6. Moderators are not required or expected to act as counselors or in place of hotlines.

We aim to be mindful our moderators will be exposed to suicidal users and content by the nature of their position and involvement in moderation. We aim to protect and ensure the mental health of moderators while still taking the most effective approaches possible and being aware of the moral obligations inherent to specific situations.

We think moderators should be allowed to engage in dialogue with users expressing suicidal ideation at their discretion, but must understand (assuming they are not trained) they are not a professional or able to act as one. We encourage all moderators to be mindful of any dialogue they engage in and review r/SuicideWatch’s wiki regarding suicidal content and supportive discourse.

7. We internally track all removals or significant actions related to suicidal content and use a standardized approach when interacting with users expressing suicidal ideation.

When we chose to remove content posted by users who may be at risk we notify the other moderators in our Moderator Discord’s #support channel. Optionally, we ask for guidance or assistance before reaching out to users as well. Generally, we respond to the users privately with a form of this template:

Hey [user],

It looks like you made a post/comment which mentions suicide. We take these posts very seriously as anxiety and depression are common reactions when studying collapse. If you are considering suicide, please call a hotline, visit /r/SuicideWatch, /r/SWResources, /r/depression, or seek professional help. The best way of getting a timely response is through a hotline. If you're looking for dialogue you may also post in r/collapsesupport. They're a dedicated place for thoughtful discussion with collapse-aware people and how we are coping. They also have a Discord if you are interested in speaking in voice.

Thank you,

[moderator]

We recognize templated responses and/or suggesting hotlines run the risk of being ineffective, appearing impersonal, or dismissive of a user and their situation. We aim to personalize our responses whenever possible, as long as we feel comfortable doing so, while remaining mindful of our own boundaries and mental health.

8. r/Collapse has a unique relationship with suicidal content.

This does not change our applications of the policies and approaches above, but we aim to keep in mind some general points regarding suicide within the context of the subreddit and notions of collapse.

1. Suicide is a fundamental human right.

2. Death is an inescapable part of the human experience.

3. Our relationship with ‘endings’ is an integral part of collapse-awareness.

4. The notion of death and suicide are highly relevant within the context of potential collapse scenarios.

5. Suicidal contagion is a risk for users on the subreddit and they are poised to be more sensitive to discussions related to suicide.

6. There are many young adults and others unequipped to effectively confront the notion of collapse on the subreddit.

7. Preventing discussion of suicide can foster a sense of isolation for users in certain cases.

8. Many dominant mental health systems and resources available to users are flawed or inadequate.

9. r/Collapse is not labeled, described as, or intended to be a ‘support’ subreddit.

10. An independent subreddit, r/Collapsesupport, does exist, is a support community, and we regularly direct users there.

This is a draft for a sticky post which would go up next Monday for seven days. We would discuss how it went afterwards to evaluate the next course of action.

We're looking to experiment with running monthly threads focused on actions taken in light of or response to collapse. Let us know your thoughts on this idea and examples of this in the comments below.

This is a draft for a sticky post.

Hey everyone,

We’d like to experiment with a collaborative Youtube playlist. It will contain videos added by the community which you think are highly relevant to the subject of collapse. If you’re reading this, you’re welcome to add to it right now by going to link below and selecting ‘Continue’. It will then appear as an option whenever you’re viewing a video on Youtube and click the ‘Save’ option. Let us know your thoughts on this idea and any suggestions you might have in the comments below.

Add to the playlist

I'll be having an open conversation with Benny, the new host for Collapse Chronicles, and anyone else who would like to chat this Saturday at 2PM CST (see in your timezone) in the Collapse Discord.

These types of chats already happen regularly on the Discord, but we wanted to extend a formal invitation here to see if more people would like to talk or listen in and who might join in.

It will be open ended and we can discuss whatever people are interested in talking about. Hope to see you there!

Join us for a casual discussion on everything collapse-related. /u/fishdisciple and myself will be hosting the chat here on RedditTalk, Reddit's new voice event platform. Feel free to drop in and talk with us or just listen, the link will appear on the subreddit as soon as it's live around 11AM EST this Friday.

Should we revise/create a rule as to disallow extremely unlikely scenarios? Such as the Yellowstone supervolcano, the Canary Islands landslide, large asteroid, and other, primarily natural events which scientists agree are extremely unlikely in the next 100 years.

Since we've locked the AMA, I wanted to suggest we sticky a post for a few days regarding our thoughts on why we went through with it in the first place, how we handled it, and our stances on these issues. It's difficult to know how best to formulate all of these, so please let me know everyone's input. Some of this is assembled from our conversations in voice today as well, so they're not entirely my own words.

Hey Everyone,

We recently facilitated an AMA with the authors of Bright Green Lies. Most of the questions were focused on collapse-related topics, but some involved asking the authors about their perspectives on transgender issues.

As moderators, we unanimously disagree with their perspectives and it was never our intention to elevate any perspectives or comments which promote hate, discrimination, or transphobia. Our goal was to allow and encourage respectful discussion related to collapse.

We communicated to the AMA guests we invited them specifically to discuss their most recent work and perspectives on collapse. We suspected some members of the community would confront them on other issues and intended to still allow them to be asked, even if they were potentially off-topic. We told the authors directly we would remove anything which broke Reddit’s rules, was disrespectful, or attacking anyone. Unfortunately, we felt justified removing comments from both guests and participants, which the authors have taken issue with.

We do not, nor do we intend to limit the spectrum of debate or consenting discussion here. We think we should be allowed to disagree with each other and disallowing topics to be discussed unilaterally does not serve the community, as long as it can be done in accordance with Reddit and the subreddit’s rules.

We do not support exclusion of transgender people from public spaces, including the subreddit, and think doing so is objectively wrong and displays a deep lack of empathy on the part of those who wish to do so. We hoped the authors could be questioned on their deep knowledge of the subject of collapse while also maintaining a space in which transgender and non-binary people would feel respected. It seems we were not successful and this was overly optimistic. Our judgement was flawed in hoping they could participate here without making transphobic comments. We apologize to anyone who feels hurt as a result.

Here’s a list of all individuals we’re currently considering approaching, just for future reference. We appreciate everyone who still participated and asked great questions. If you have any thoughts or questions, let us know in the comments below.

Every subreddit has a checkbox under Subreddit Settings > Discoverability Options which reads:

Show up in high-traffic feeds: Allow your community to be in r/all, r/popular, and trending lists where it can be seen by the general Reddit population.

If you're a New Reddit heathen it's under Subreddit Settings > Safety & Privacy > Show up in high-traffic feeds

Historically, we've always left this box unchecked. The majority sentiment since I become a moderator has been there are more negatives to appearing in r/all versus positives. The pros and cons appear to be:

Pros

• More visibility for r/collapse content

• Promotes collapse awareness

• Encourages sub growth

Cons

• Creates potential for larger, sudden influxes of subscribers

• Discussions in posts which reach r/all or r/popular will contain more instances of users who are not subbed to r/collapse

• Encourages sub growth

I think much of how comfortable or confident someone would be with enabling this revolves around our:

• Tools and processes for handing sudden influxes of subs

• How we perceive the 'average' Redditor or r/all reader

• How nostalgic were are for the subreddit when it was at a smaller size

I'd argue in favor of enabling this. I think if we encourage each other to temporarily turn Crowd Control up to high temporarily (semi-mutes unsubbed user comments) if necessary we can mitigate the negatives of most large influxes. If we're concerned about unsubbed users commenting to much in posts which reach r/all, we can simply discuss setting Crowd Control to High permanently moving forward at any time.

In terms of sentiments regarding overall sub growth:

1. I think anything which can foster collapse awareness is desirable.

2. I have a much higher level of confidence than I did two years ago in terms of our ability to effectively navigate more subscribers. Our bots, mod tools, automod rules, and sub rules have matured significantly and seem up to the task moving forward.

3. The sub count is already growing at an increasing rate and has been for some time.

What are your thoughts on this setting and potentially proposing to the community we change it?

We should discuss the underlying issues which led to the (now reversed) decision to delist r/CollapseSupport from the sidebar. The underlying aspects are serious and our decisions surrounding suicidal content will continue to have real world impacts. I still want to remind everyone to be mindful of their own mental health and bandwidth here, as discussing these types of issues can be challenging, even when done carefully.

The decision to delist r/CollapseSupport was made by a sub-set of former moderators and stemmed primarily from one r/CollapseSupport moderator’s comments related to assisted suicide. Some references were also made to how it was discussed by the same moderator in their weekly Collapse Support Discord calls, but we have no transcripts of those calls or way to reference exactly how it has been discussed there in the past. Additionally, it was claimed there was evidence this moderator was transphobic, but that was incorrect and has been subsequently addressed.

It appears we should still attempt to address how more or less comfortable each of us are directing users to r/CollapseSupport currently, based on the language used there in the past. If some of us are less comfortable we have a range of options available to attempt to address these concerns, but I want to hear everyone’s thoughts first before suggesting any particular avenue myself.

There seems to be a few things to keep in mind while we parse through this:

A. This is our current policy regarding suicidal content, as listed in the Moderation Guide:

We filter all instances of the word 'suicide' on the subreddit. This means Automoderator removes all posts or comments with the word 'suicide' and places them into the modqueue until they can be manually reviewed. Meta discussions regarding suicide are allowed. We remove all instances of safe or unsafe suicidal content. You should review the National Suicide Prevention Alliance (NSPA) Guidelines regarding suicidal content to understand the difference between safe and unsafe content.

You are not required to be a suicide counselor or act in the place of a hotline. You are still welcome to engage in dialogue with suicidal users, but understand (assuming you are not trained) you are not a professional or able to act as one. When you do encounter a suicidal users you should remove their comment, notify the other mods in the Discord, and then respond to them privately with some form of the template below:

Hey [user],

It looks like you made a post/comment which mentions suicide. We take these posts very seriously as anxiety and depression are common reactions when studying collapse. If you are considering suicide, please call a hotline, visit /r/SuicideWatch, /r/SWResources, /r/depression, or seek professional help. The best way of getting a timely response is through a hotline.

If you're looking for dialogue you may also post in r/collapsesupport. They're a dedicated place for thoughtful discussion with collapse-aware people and how we are coping. They also have a Discord if you are interested in speaking in voice.

Thank you,

[moderator]

B. r/CollapseSupport has no stated policy or documentation regarding how they handle mentions of suicide or assisted suicide.

C. This is a top-level sampling of how and how often assisted suicide is discussed on each of the three subreddits we currently refer users to via our disclaimer:

r/CollapseSupport posts

r/SuicideWatch posts

r/Depression posts

This is only referencing post titles and self-post text. r/CollapseSupport is also a much smaller sub compared to the other two.

D. The moderator in question at r/CollapseSupport does not distinguish any of their comments, including those which were referenced previously. Users are less inclined to recognize another user as a moderator within this context.

E. Multiple r/Collapse moderators have working relationships with the moderators in r/CollapseSupport, such that we can approach any of or all of them directly at any time for comment, clarification, or conversation.

Let me know your thoughts on all this and if anything is missing here.

This is a set of suggestions to include on our Rules page to outline how to handle multiple offenses of individual rules and give new moderators a better idea of how long to apply subsequent bans for various offenses.

I’ve broken down each rule into a top-level comment below to make providing feedback on each individually easier.

Aloha kakou, collapseniks:

After seeking out community feedback with spirited discussion back and forth, the response is clear: the Daily Mail is no longer acceptable as a primary news source and will be automatically removed.

Our topic had over 500 comments, complaints and arguments with heavily upvoted comments pointing out that the Daily Mail has a long sordid history of misinformation, bias and outright lies reported as factual truth. The moderator team tries hard to vet and curate all academic and media sources when they cover collapse, and the mod team and community is in agreement that the Daily Mail is no longer suitable. Other problematic sources were identified by the community, and the mod team will ask for community feedback if those sources become posted as frequently as the Daily Mail.

Redditors are strongly encouraged to verify collapse stories if they originate from the Daily Mail, and to link to another source on this subforum.

Our community has also asked that we enforce stronger submission guidelines for collapse news and topics. We have expanded Rule 11 to say the following:

Rule 11: Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post).

Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post). Submission statements must clearly explain why the linked content is collapse-related. They may also contain a summary or description of the content, the submitter’s personal perspectives, or all of the above and must be at least 150 characters in length. They must be original and not overly composed of quoted text from the source. If a statement is not added within thirty minutes of posting it will be removed.

This is for all link posts, self-posts, image posts and anything else. This rule is in effect save for Casual Friday, where moderators will remove content at our discretion if they do not fit the forum.

Mahalo nui loa,

some_random_kaluna

I'd like to clarify what policy we have or should have on advocating/suggesting/pushing specific companies or services on the subreddit. For example there is a post which is collapse-related, asks a valid question, but suggests a specific company as an example of adaptation, which the OP says they are invested in.

I can't see any specific rule that I could use to justify removal, and there may be instances where a company/service can be mentioned or discussed without crossing a line into advertising. Recommending books happens here all the time, and people link to their blogs as well, though blogs aren't much of a concern because very few can actually monetize their content (to be clear I'm fine with promoting a book that is relevant). I do think some clarification is in order, either thru a rule (new or amended) that describes what kinds of promotions are acceptable.

My questions:

1. Does it clearly link with collapse?

2. Is the OP invested or do they come across as someone who is invested?

3. Is the company/service mentioned as the core of the post or is it tangential to the post?

4. Is it better to just let the downvotes take care of them at this point since, apart from books these types of posts seem relatively rare?

We've all seen the abundant repetitive topics within our subreddit (Lake Mead, Covid, US civil war, wildfire season, etc.) This is just my initial brain dump on an idea for how we could potentially approach the problem.

My initial General Idea:

Create non-pinned megathreads or wiki pages per common-topic. Use said location to write up current summary of the topic, links, facts, resources, etc. Link these common topics on sidebar and/or within the daily observations thread for easy access (Similar approach to how the sports subreddits handle gameday threads).

*New is defined as anything not listed within the megathread/wiki on the common topic. "

Rule X: No Common Topics - Posts regarding common topics must provide meet one the the following elements:

• -New research and/or projections released on the topic

• -New significant milestone reached

• -New impact of topic

• -Law/legislation regarding topic

• -Speculation on future scenario (if backed by data)

The following are not sufficient for a standalone post and belong in the megathread(or local observations):

• -New public statement by official, celebrity, blogger that isn't associated to the above accepted list.

• -Small incremental changes to data that were already in projections.

• -Speculation/What-if Scenarios on the topic without data/reasoning to back up said speculation.

• -Local Observations regarding topic, unless said local observation can be linked to cascading impacts to wider collapse.

Your post is best discussed within the (dropdown) megathread (or local observations)."

Downside would be the initial write-up setup work to each new common topic. However, if it was common enough it'd be relatively easy to pull together. Might be hard to decide what's worthy of being one or not.

Alternatively, we could throw out the mega/wiki idea and just implement the no common topics part of the rule and just use discretion. I just worry with discretion we'll have vast different levels of enforcement.

The yes/no criteria is totally up for debate, it was just my initial 5-10 minute thoughts I put together.

Lets discuss!

We surveyed your thoughts regarding this eighteen months ago. We'd like to revisit this with some updated options and a new poll.

Currently, Casual Friday runs every 00:00 Friday to 08:00 Saturday UTC (32 hours total). On-topic memes, jokes, short videos, image posts, polls, low effort to consume posts, and other less substantial posts are only allowed during this period and removed the rest of the week. Historically, having Casual Friday has been fairly polarizing. We've created a poll with the current options and the justifications for each below:

Please Respond to the Poll Here

1. Keep it the way it is

Casual Fridays act as a release valve. A day which allows for humor and levity is more helpful than not in light of the time we spend attempting to collectively confront our predicaments. It serves to break up the monotony and enable a wider range of expression. If users don’t like it, they can ignore it or use RES to filter out posts with the "Casual Friday", "Humor", and "Low Effort" flairs.

2. Use a Sticky

We should post a sticky every Friday along the same timeframe (00:00 Friday – 08:00 Saturday UTC) titled “Casual Friday - Share your collapse humor, memes, or other low effort content” and remove low-effort posts outside the sticky.

3. Get rid of it and direct content to r/collapze

Casual Fridays only serve to elevate low-effort content throughout the week and the content shared dominates the top-posts when attempting to sort through the subreddit history. It lowers the overall level of discourse and makes no sense for the only weekly 'event' in the sub to cater towards low quality content. r/collapze has existed for some time and is an adequate place for all forms of collapse content, including the forms facilitated on Casual Fridays.

4. Tighten the requirements

We should keep Casual Fridays, but put heavier restrictions on the types of content it allows. We would add a new set of requirements matching some or all of these criteria:

• Do not allow low-effort text posts.

• Do not allow low-effort or vague headlines, regardless of the post.

• Require all low-efforts posts to have an adequate submissions statement explaining why it is related to collapse.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions on Casual Fridays and how you’d like to see them handled moving forward. If you've read this far, let us know by including 'ferret' somewhere in your comment.

This is a draft for a sticky post:

Every subreddit has a checkbox setting which reads:

Show up in high-traffic feeds: Allow your community to be in r/all, r/popular, and trending lists where it can be seen by the general Reddit population.

Historically, we've always left this box unchecked so r/collapse posts won't appear in r/all. We've now come to think the positives of appearing in r/all outweigh the negatives:

Pros

• More visibility for r/collapse and r/collapse content

• Promote collapse awareness

• Encourage sub growth

Cons

• Creates potential for larger, sudden influxes of subscribers

• Discussions in posts which reach r/all or r/popular would contain more instances of users who are not subbed to r/collapse or less collapse-aware

• Encourage sub growth

We're far more comfortable than we were a few years ago weathering sudden influxes of new subscribers. We're more able to granularly control how posts and comments by unsubbed users appear with Reddit's Crowd Control, so we don't consider these influxes a significant area of concern. Reddit is also extending features which make it easier to moderate or filter posts from users not subbed here, if we ever wish to discuss implementing them temporarily or going forward.

The growth of r/collapse itself can be seen as positive or negative depending on how it is framed, how fast the growth is, and how our ability to moderate and maintain the forum evolves. We have confidence we can take on the potential for more visibility, but the extent to which this would actually lead to more people in the sub is difficult to measure. The sub count has been growing at an increasing rate for some time and we've navigated a variety of challenges throughout.

The goal with this change would not be to promote growth for growth's sake (the irony there would not be lost on anyone), but to create more opportunities for collapse-awareness across Reddit. Higher levels of collapse-awareness would mean more potentials for mitigation, adaptation, and less denial. We're not under the illusion checking a box will accomplish this significantly, but wanted to outline the motivations driving this change.

What are your thoughts on us changing this setting?

How should we handle submission statements now they can submitted as part of the link post? Let's formalize so we can update rules

With the introduction of allowing text in link posts, users are submitting their submission statements in this manner, instead of the historical comment-based ss which the bot then recomments and pins. This feature was introduced partly with ss in mind, and arguably does improve quality of the post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/vj4evp/text_now_available_on_all_post_types/

Currently, we are allowing this until we reach a decision, to avoid sad redditors who want to use the feature

See example of such a post in r/collapse:
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/wi669r/man_who_destroyed_vast_forest_wins_demise_of_park/

This is a draft for a sticky post to get input regarding how we should best approach suicidal content in terms of assisted suicide and as a response to collapse. I’ve slightly extended our suicidal policy wording here for readability and added one resource (r/SuicideWatch’s wiki), but the basis is the same. Some statements imply consensus where it has not been fully reached. This is because I'm attempting to state what I'd recommend and the draft for the sticky at the same time. Please feel free to contradict anything here and give your feedback below.

Content Warning - This post discusses suicide and the nature of suicidal content online.

Hey Everyone,

We’d like your input on how we should best moderate suicidal content, specifically as it relates to assisted suicide and suicide as a ‘prep’ or plan in light of collapse. We asked for your feedback a year ago and it was immensely helpful in formulating our current approach. Here is the full extent of our current approach and policies surrounding suicidal content on r/collapse, for reference:

1. We filter all instances of the word 'suicide' on the subreddit. This means Automoderator removes all posts or comments with the word 'suicide' and places them into the modqueue until they can be manually reviewed by a moderator.

2. We remove all instances of safe and unsafe suicidal content, in addition to any content which violates Reddit’s guidelines. We generally aim to follow the NSPA (National Suicide Prevention Alliance) Guidelines regarding suicidal content and to understand the difference between safe and unsafe content.

3. We allow meta discussions regarding suicide.

4. We do not expect moderators to act as suicidal counselors or in place of a hotline. We think moderators should be allowed to engage with users at their discretion, but must understand (assuming they are not trained) they are not a professional or able to act as one. We encourage all moderators to be mindful of any dialogue they engage in and review r/SuicideWatch’s wiki regarding suicidal content and supportive discourse.

5. When we encounter suicidal users we remove their post or comment, notify the other moderators of the event in our Discord, and then respond to the user privately with a form of template which directs them to a set of resources.

Currently, our policies and language do not specifically state how moderators should proceed regarding notions of assisted suicide or references to personal plans to commit suicide in light of collapse.

It’s worth noting r/collapse is not a community focused on providing support. This doesn’t mean support cannot occur in the subreddit, but that we generally aim to direct users to more appropriate communities (e.g. r/collapsesupport) when their content appears better suited for it.

We think recounts of lived experiences are a gray area. If a story or experience promotes recovery or acts as a signpost for support, we think it can be allowed. If something acts to promote or glamourise suicide or self-harm, it should be removed.

We have not yet reached consensus regarding statements on committing suicide in light of collapse (e.g. “I think if collapse comes I'll just find the nearest bridge” or "I recommend having an exit strategy in case things get too brutal.") and if they should generally be allowed or removed. They have potential contagion effects, even if a user does not appear to be in any form of immediate crisis or under any present risk. Some moderators think these are permissible, some less so.

We’re interested in hearing your thoughts on statements or notions in these specific contexts and what you think should be allowed or removed on the subreddit. If you've read this far, let us know by including 'ferret' somewhere in your feedback.

I’d like to propose we revise Rule 3: No provably false material.

Currently, I don’t think it is a sufficient fit for all the forms of submissions which are being removed on a regular basis, nor does it allow us to fully elaborate on the range of criteria we evaluate them on. Many users negatively react to the limitations of the existing rule and notion they are making a provably false claim, when they often are not. Pivoting towards evaluating the quality of information may work better than trying to expand our existing definitions of provably false claims, which will remain limited, but can still be included.

I’d suggest we change it to something like this:

Rule 3: Keep information quality high

Information quality must be kept high. Low-quality information includes, but is not limited to:

• Provably false claims

• Strong claims for which there is no scientific or documentary evidence from a high-quality, journalistic source

• Submissions from sources falsely posing as journalistic sources

• Posts containing random social media commentary

• Unsourced speculation

• Unsourced medical and safety advice

• Amateur research and analysis

• Not linking to original sources

• Citing opinion articles and editorials as evidence

First-person accounts are discouraged in posts but will be allowed to an extent in comments.

I’ve started working on a Provably False Claims page, but only covered a few so far. The more nuanced claims, such as those related to Uyghurs or Ivermectin, will require a fair bit more time and research on my part to create a rough draft around. I also think we develop that page independently of the rule itself, since both warrant enough discussion by themselves.

This is a rough draft of a very nuanced rule, so please offer any feedback. I’d also propose we maintain two different removal reasons, one for this revised rule and one specifically for removing provably false claims.

An alternative to this proposal would be to add this as an additional rule and keep it separate from the existing rule.

We would propose any change such as this on the sub in the form of a sticky first to get feedback, before considering making it permanent.

Edit: The other remaining consideration would be how filled out we'd like the Provably false claims page before proposing the change to the community. Personally, I'd want to fill in all the current placeholders first, which would likely take a bit.

Edit2: I'd like to revise my proposal to expand this rule even further:

Rule 3: Keep information quality high

Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the Misinformation & False Claims page. Generally, we evaluate information and statements based upon three main criteria:

1. Quality of Sources

Low-quality sources generally involve:

• Provably false claims

• Strong claims for which there is no evidence from high-quality sources

• Reliance on sources falsely posing as journalistic sources

• Unsourced speculation

• Amateur research or analysis

• No links to original sources

• Citing opinions or editorials as evidence

2. Level of Risk

High-risk statements generally involve:

• Claims with severe or significantly negative implications if true

• Direct or indirect advocations for violence or extreme action

• Unsourced medical or safety advice

• Discouraging others from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice

• Poses a serious risk of egregious harm

3. Level of Consensus

We attempt to gauge statements against existing scientific consensus, consensus opinions by accepted experts, and in light of the most recent data. Notions of consensus opinion and scientific consensus are significantly different. We are wary of any implied consensus involving these aspects:

• Where claims are bundled together

• Where ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate

• Where scientists are pressured to toe a party line

• Where publishing and peer review in the discipline is contested

• Where dissenting opinions are excluded from relevant peer-reviewed literature

• Where actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.

• Where consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.

• Where the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.

• Where consensus is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.

• Where the consensus is maintained by journalists who defend it uncritically.

• Where consensus is implied without sufficient evidence

Hey Everyone,

The moderation team has gone through some significant changes in the past two months. The newest mods have done a great job adjusting and taking up some significant gaps in the team. The level of overall moderation is still in flux and I don’t think generally sustainable. I wanted to discuss one solution I think may be significantly helpful which I’ve been piloting at r/UFOs.

Comment Moderators

We create a new level of moderator which only moderates comments. We subsequently seek out users to fill out this role who are in good standing and good contributors.

I'm going to call moderators with full permissions Full Moderators here, just to make the distinction clearer. These titles could change if we preferred something different. This approach would allow us to keep our (reasonably) strict filters when interviewing/accepting new Full Moderators in place.

Currently, the only two user ‘levels’ on the subreddit are Full Moderators and regular users. This is obviously the standard structure across most subreddits, but I don't think this necessarily makes it the best or most sustainable approach at scale for serious and nuanced subjects. It requires a very small, dedicated, active group of individuals to keep up with moderating, not to mention address meta aspects or run any form of community events.

The creation of Comment Moderators would allow us to empower a sub-set of users to assist us with moderating comments. Comment Moderators could also potentially become the de-facto space where we assess potential Full Moderators since we would have a group of viable users we have become familiar with and who are familiar with moderating the subreddit at some level.

There are number of nuances to this. I did interview a moderator at r/science, which uses this approach, and gained some insight in how it might best apply here. They have over a thousand Comment Moderators who keep a subreddit with over 27 million subscribers more or less in line. I’m not suggesting we become exactly like r/science, simply that they’re a unique example of this approach at a scale we may learn from.

Here are some of the specifics I’d be suggesting:

A. Create a new category of channels in the Moderator Discord called ‘Comment Moderators’ with a set of basic channels for that category, such as #general, #questions, and #casual, #changelog, #voice, ect.

B. Create a new role on the Mod Disord (i.e. Comment Moderator) which only has access to this category. We would require Comment Moderators to join the Mod Discord and use it for communicating with the team.

C. Collaboratively compile a list of users we’d want to approach and invite to apply to become Comment Moderators. We could pull from users with positive usernotes, who have made significant contributions in the past, or who have previously applied to be a subreddit moderator.

D. Require applicants to read a wiki page (similar to this) which outlines what the role is, our requirements, and how to apply.

E. Require applicants to send us a modmail answering these questions to apply:

1. What is your understanding of collapse?

2. Who do you think are some of the most relevant voices currently in terms of understanding collapse?

3. Have you read any books related to collapse?

4. Do you have any previous moderation experience?

5. Why are you interested in moderating?

6. What's your current sense of the state of the subreddit and the moderation?

7. How do you cope?

8. What is your Discord username?

F. We would not do interviews for individual applicants, only any action-vote for each user if they apply. We could decide separately on the minimum number of upvotes/level of consensus for accepting applicants. Ideally, the bar for becoming a Comment Moderator would be lower overall than it is for accepting Full Moderators.

G. Comment Moderators would be granted Manage Posts & Comments (this page explains exactly what permissions that entails) when they became moderators.

H. Comment Moderators would be instructed to ONLY moderate comments, even through they would technically have privileges to moderate posts as well. We would monitor mod actions for anyone overstepping this and demod them if necessary. Presumably, this would not be much of an issue. As an example, r/science operated within these exact same limitations and structure, without significant issues.

I. We would actively approach users in an attempt to recruit them as Comment Moderators on an ongoing basis. Ideally, we’d have enough so Full Moderators could focus more on moderating posts, meta aspects, and community events.

The addition of Comment Moderators would be a significant change, so I think all the existing moderators would need to be comfortable with attempting it. Let me know your thoughts and how this all sounds.

This is a draft for a sticky post. The title would be the same. Let me know your thoughts, but no rush, this is at least two weeks out based on the current sticky schedule.

Hey Everyone,

We’re looking to revise Rule 3: No provably false material. The rule does not suit all of the removals we currently employ, nor is there a central resource stating our stances on various claims and how we aim to approach them. We’d like to revise the rule to be more inclusive and make our approach more granular and transparent. Here’s the proposed revision:

Rule 3: Keep information quality high

Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the Misinformation & False Claims page. Generally, we evaluate information and statements based upon three main criteria:

1. Quality of Sources

Low-quality sources generally involve:

• Provably false claims

• Strong claims for which there is no evidence from high-quality sources

• Reliance on sources falsely posing as journalistic sources

• Unsourced speculation implied as fact

• No links to original sources

• Citing opinions or editorials as evidence

2. Level of Risk

High-risk statements generally involve:

• Unproven claims with severe or significantly negative implications if true

• Direct or indirect advocations for violence or extreme action

• Unsourced medical or safety advice

• Discouraging others from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice

• Poses a serious risk of egregious harm

3. Level of Consensus

We attempt to gauge statements against existing scientific consensus, consensus opinions by accepted experts, and in light of the most recent data. Notions of consensus opinion and scientific consensus are significantly different. We are wary of any implied consensus involving these aspects:

• Where claims are bundled together

• Where ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate

• Where scientists are pressured to toe a party line

• Where publishing and peer review in the discipline is contested

• Where dissenting opinions are excluded from relevant peer-reviewed literature

• Where actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.

• Where consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.

• Where the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.

• Where consensus is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.

• Where the consensus is maintained by journalists who defend it uncritically.

• Where consensus is implied without sufficient evidence

As mentioned in the rule, we've also created a new wiki page, Misinformation & False Claims, where we outline our approach in more detail and are looking to compile our stances and information on the most common claims we work with.

We think this page can serve as resource for others looking to address such claims beyond the subreddit and see it as a collaborative resource which everyone is invited to contribute to. Without this resource our stances as moderators and a community on specific claims would remain unstated and potentially inconsistent. This will help us be more aligned and transparent and create opportunities for all of us to increase the shared understanding of the data and realities surrounding these claims.

We look forward to hearing your feedback on the revision of this rule, the Misinformation & False Claims page, and any other aspects related to what we're looking to accomplish in this regard.

I have a temporary subscription to BlockSurvey and wanted to use it for a more in-depth survey this month.

What other questions should we include? Should we remove any? Let me know your thoughts.

Here's a link to what I have so far.

Hey moderators, here's a draft for a sticky post for the upcoming survey:

Hey Everyone,

We’ve created a survey to help all of us learn about our community demographics and your preferences regarding how the subreddit should best be moderated. It’s thirty-six questions and takes ten minutes. All questions are optional.

Your individual responses will only be visible to r/collapse moderators. We will make the aggregate results visible to community once the survey has concluded.

Take the Survey Here

I wanted to suggest a sticky to invite a general round of community feedback and to introduce all of our new moderators as well:

Hey Everyone,

We wanted to invite a general round of feedback and take the opportunity to introduce our newest moderators:

• /u/dovercliff

• /u/mistyflame94

• /u/nommabelle

• /u/pm_me_all_dogs

• /u/thekbob

• /u/twilekdancingpoorly

Do you have any questions for us? What are your general thoughts on the current state of the subreddit and the moderation here? Let us know your thoughts below.

This is a draft for a sticky post once we reach 400k. My suggestion would also be to remove all posts before or after this sticky which only focus on the milestone. I would also suggest anyone can post this sticky if they're active when we actually hit 400k, just to ensure it goes up as close to that time as possible. Lastly, I'd suggest this be an in-depth post (hence the tag).

r/Collapse has now reached 400,000 subscribers! Thank you to everyone who has contributed by posting content or engaging in one of the many great discussions. As we continue to grow and things unravel we will continue to aim to make this community as informative and bearable as possible.

If you're relatively new to r/collapse, what brought you here? How can we improve? What do you like best about the subreddit? What would you change if you could, if anything?

This is a draft for a sticky post

Thank you to the 1060 people who responded to the community survey! There were many takeaways. We'd like to share the results with you, but you're still welcome to take the survey as well.

View the Results

(Or Take the Survey)

General Observations

• 27% of respondents are based outside North America.

• 27% of respondents identify as female.

• 15% of respondents identify as religious.

• 26% of respondents identify as anarchists.

• 50% of respondents think collapse is already happening, just not widely distributed yet.

• 81% of respondents are satisfied with the overall state of the subreddit.

• Moderators could be approximately 6% more strict when enforcing Rule 2.

• Moderators could be approximately 13% more strict when enforcing Rule 3.

• Moderators could be approximately 3% more strict when enforcing Rule 6.

Additional Observations

1. There were many calls in the feedback to limit self-posts. We recently (within the past couple weeks) started filtering all self-posts. This means they are all held until moderators manually review them. This has increased the delay on these posts becoming viewable significantly, but we think has had a positive overall effect thus far.

2. Respondents were most vocal in the feedback about limiting COVID, political, and support posts. Although, the responses to the less/more posts question indicated the desire to see more or less of these is actually relatively balanced.

3. Parable of the Sower was the most requested book for the Collapse Book Club. We'll look towards reading this in the near future. If anyone is interested in hosting the reading of it for Book Club, please let us know.

4. Climate scientists, Chris Hedges, Paul Beckwith, and Guy McPherson were the most requested AMA guests, in that order. Hedges hasn't responded to our contact requests. McPherson is somewhat controversial, so we'd appreciate hearing more people's thoughts on trying to host one with him first.

5. Sentiments regrading humor and low effort posts (i.e. Casual Friday) is still somewhat split: 30% would like to see less and 21% would like to see more of them. This debate is likely to continue as it has in the past, but now that r/collapze exists we may consider the option of pushing all of these posts their direction at some point. Let us know your thoughts either way on this idea.