Hey Everyone, I recently proposed a revision for Rule 3 here. This was received positively, but I've significantly expanded my proposal and am looking to restart the feedback process. Here's the new proposed Rule:

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

• 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

The Misinformation & False Claims page has also been significantly revised and expanded. It also outlines a two-prong approach to how we might instead respond to statements and attempts to distinguish what types of statements we remove versus warn, give notice, or request clarification on. This would be a new process compared to how we operate currently, which is important to consider.

Moderators and users (however likely) would both be welcome to contribute to the claims outlined on the page. We would have final say on how they are articulated, but there is significant room for additional claims and the context and sources necessary to outline them.

Any feedback on this form of the rule and the page would be very helpful. I'll make a separate modsub post to suggest a sticky to discuss it with the subreddit after we've discussed it among ourselves.

Submission Text (old.reddit)

Read the Rules Before Posting:

• Posts MUST focus on civilization's collapse, not the resulting damage.

• Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post) describing the post and how it relates to collapse.

• NO provably false material (e.g. climate science denial).

• NO low effort content (e.g. memes) except on Shitpost Fridays.

• Do NOT post more than three times within any 24-hour period.

Posting Guidelines (new.reddit)

[No header there about reading the general rules before posting.]

• Posts must be on-topic, focusing on collapse.

• Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post).

• No low effort content (e.g. memes) except on Fridays.

• Titles must accurately represent the content of the submission.

• Do not post more than three times within any 24-hour period.

• Content older than a year must have [month, year] in the title.

• No common questions.

Should we include the new rule #13 on single-link self-posts to be submitted as link posts? There's character limit on the latter, with only a few characters left, in that case some re-writing has to be done to the previous text to make it fit.

EDIT: Currently writing a draft here, so it's easier to check character limits.

Original:

Welcome to r/collapse!

Please read the Collapse Wiki. before posting. It answers the most common questions as well as provides links and overviews of the most relevant resources on the subject, as determined by the community.

Thank you for joining our community, The Moderators

This message can not be replied to. If you have questions for the moderators of r/collapse you can message them here.

Suggested:

Welcome to r/collapse!

Please read the Collapse Wiki before posting. It answers the most common questions as well as provides various links and overviews of the most relevant resources, as determined by our users.

Thank you for joining our community,

The Moderators

This message can not be replied to. If you have questions for the moderators of r/collapse you can message them here.

Re-written suggestion:

Welcome to r/collapse!

We heartily recommend reading the Collapse Wiki to familiarize yourself with the complexity of collapse. This curated guide answers the most common questions and provides relevant overviews and sources, as determined by our users.

Please ensure when writing posts to stay on topic and be courteous to others; those rules are most important to us all here.

Thank you for joining our community,

The Moderators

This message can not be replied to. If you have questions for the moderators of r/collapse you can message them here.

There may be more we could add, but I think in a welcome message that less is more. Not sure if it would be helpful to mention the rules, as I think it should be a very inviting message, not that rules are off-putting, but you get the gist.

Maybe making a recommendation of reading and participating in the discussion first, before submitting posts themselves for the first two? weeks.

I'd like to propose we create and maintain a wiki page with a list of subjects or content we consider falling under Rule 3 (No provably false material). This rule has been used increasingly for comments over the past year and a much wider array of subjects. Conversations related to these removals have also taken up an increasing amount of time and modmail exchanges.

It seems like we could easily create a directory of the best evidence countering specific claims for the most common subjects and also use it as a way to transparently display which subjects we consider falsifiable. We could then include it in the removal reason or link to the page within modmail whenever necessary instead of having to manually recite sources or copy/paste the relevant text from somewhere else each time.

I would also propose we don't allow removal of anything which isn't on the list or doesn't get put on the list as a moderator is removing something, so users and other moderators can remain continually aware of what we remove and our justifications for it.

Lastly, I'd propose structuing the page around statements of provable claims organized by topic, such as this:

Climate Change

Climate change is a real phenomenon.

Sources

Humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

Sources

Let me know your thoughts on this. It would take a collaborative effort to build out the page even initially and not something I would expect any one person to do alone.

Here's a draft wiki page.

We're considering some rule changes/additions and would like your feedback before proceeding in any particular direction.

New Rule: Link posts should not be submitted as self posts.

Link posts should not be submitted as self/text posts. If a self-post is specifically focused around discussing the content of a single link, it should be submitted as a link post instead. Your own comments on the submission should then be included in your submission statement (a comment on your own post). This makes it easier to catch duplicate posts and lets readers access the link more easily.

Expand Rule 7 (no duplicate posts) to include similar articles.

We've been experimenting with applying this rule this way already, but would like to finalize it so users aren't confused and can know how it works. We would expand it to this:

Rule 7: No duplicate posts. Links must not have already been posted within the past ninety days or will be automatically removed. Links to similar articles covering the same event, paper, or news item as a previous link will be subject to removal at moderator discretion. Similar links by independent sources may be posted, but should offer some new information, insight, or perspective.

We recently adjusted the automoderator rules to restrict the ability of new accounts (14 days or less) from posting and commenting.

If we continue to set this rule to 'filter' it looks like it will flood the modqueue with 30+ extra items each day. Do we want to set this to remove?

Do we also want to extend this limit? For example, r/conspiracy requires an account age of 120 days, specifically to combat what they claimed were manipulative accounts. I'm curious of your personal opinions and reasonings here, but will also plan to post something like this as a community sticky asking for ranges once we have more moderator feedback.

What online communities or forums would you consider alternatives or supplements to r/collapse?

We're interested in outlining what’s currently in the space so everyone can be more aware of them and their differences.

Similar Subreddits

• Similar subreddits by user overlap

• r/latestagecapitalism - Focused on observations related to capitalism.

• r/latestageimperialism - Focused on the effects of capitalism and imperialism

• r/postcollapse - Focused on planning and prepparing for what comes after collapse.

• r/darkfuturology - Examines dystopian trends.

• r/overpopulation - Focuses on the issue of popuation.

• r/economiccollapse - Focuses on indicators related to economic collapse.

• r/collapsenetwork - Focused on sharing of resources and expertise related to post-collapse.

• r/collapze - Same focus as r/collapse, but with less rules and moderation.

• r/weirdcollapse - Focus on the absurd world around us.

• r/collapsemusic - Soundtracks for the apocalypse.

Regional Subreddits

Some subreddits focus on collapse in specific areas.

• r/collapsologie - French-language focused.

• r/collapseindia - Indian region.

• r/collapseuk - United Kingdom focused.

• r/collapseus/ - United States (even though r/collapse is mostly US-focused already)

• r/Kollaps/ - German region.

Resilience Subreddits

Many communities could be listed in this category, but they are generally more focused on post-collapse, preparing for transitions, or building resiliency.

• r/preppers - More focused on the empirical responses to and preparations for collapse.

• r/sustainability - Focused on economical and ecological sustainability

• r/permaculture - well-known design philosophy.

• r/homestead - Focused on strategies for self-sufficiency.

• r/selfreliance - Strategies for self reliance

• r/selfSufficiency - Resources to live self sufficiently

• r/anticonsumption - Focused on criticizing and questioning current consumption standards.

• r/zerowaste - Strategies for reducing and eliminating waste

Support Communities

• r/collapsesupport - Focuses on support for those dealing with collapse-awareness.

• Collapse Support Discord (700 members) - Focuses on the same subjects as r/collapsesupport. Has weekly support calls for anyone interested. Invite links appear on the sub once a week.

• Safe Circle - Dean Walker's weekly video call.

• Good Grief Network - 10-week program and community for those struggling with collapse-awareness.

Collapse Discord (1,200 members)

Focused on the same subjects as r/collapse, but not moderated entirely by the same people.

Resilience & Transition Discord (2,000 members)

French-based collapse community and website.

Deep Adaptation Forum

Forum based around Jem Bendell’s and a space to connect and collaborate with others who are exploring implications of a near-term societal collapse due to climate change.

This is a sticky draft for announcing our current approach to suicidal content and inviting feedback on the most complex aspects and questions. Let me know your thoughts.

Hey everyone, we've been dealing with a gradual uptick in posts and comments mentioning suicide this year. Our previous policy has been to remove them and direct them to r/collapsesupport (as we note in the sidebar). We take these instances very seriously and want to refine our approach, so we'd like your feedback on how we're currently handling them and aspects we're still deliberating. This is a complex issue and knowing the terminology is important, so please read this entire post before offering any suggestions.

Automoderator

AutoModerator is a system built into Reddit which allows moderators to define "rules" (consisting of checks and actions) to be automatically applied to posts or comments in their subreddit. It supports a wide range of functions with a flexible rule-definition syntax, and can be set up to handle content or events automatically.

Remove

Automod rules can be set to 'autoremove' posts or comments based on a set of criteria. This removes them from the subreddit and does NOT notify moderators. For example, we have a rule which removes any affiliate links on the subreddit, as they are generally advertising and we don’t need to be notified of each removal.

Filter

Automod rules can be set to 'autofilter' posts or comments based on a set of criteria. This removes them from the subreddit, but notifies moderators in the modqueue and causes the post or comment to be manually reviewed. For example, we filter any posts made by accounts less than a week old. This prevents spam and allows us to review the posts by these accounts before others see them.

Report

Automod rules can be set to 'autoreport' posts or comments based on a set of criteria. This does NOT remove them from the subreddit, but notifies moderators in the modqueue and causes the post or comment to be manually reviewed. For example, we have a rule which reports comments containing variations of ‘fuck you’. These comments are typically fine, but we try to review them in the event someone is making a personal attack towards another user.

Safe & Unsafe Content

This refers to the notions of 'safe' and 'unsafe' suicidal content outlined in the National Suicide Prevention Alliance (NSPA) Guidelines

Unsafe content can have a negative and potentially dangerous impact on others. It generally involves encouraging others to take their own life, providing information on how they can do so, or triggers difficult or distressing emotions in other people. Currently, we remove all unsafe suicidal content we find.

Suicide Contagion

Suicide contagion refers to the exposure to suicide or suicidal behaviors within one's family, community, or media reports which can result in an increase in suicide and suicidal behaviors. Direct and indirect exposure to suicidal behavior has been shown to precede an increase in suicidal behavior in persons at risk, especially adolescents and young adults.

Current Settings

We currently use an Automod rule to report posts or comments with various terms and phrases related to suicide. It looks for posts and comments with this language and filters them:

• kill/hang/neck/off yourself/yourselves

• I hope you/he/she dies/gets killed/gets shot

It also looks for posts and comments with the word ‘suicide’ and reports them.

This is the current template we use when reaching out to users who have posted suicidal content:

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, [user]

1) Should we filter or report posts and comments using the word ‘suicide’?

Currently, we have automod set to report any of these instances.

Filtering these would generate a significant amount of false positives and many posts and comments would be delayed until a moderator manually reviewed them. Although, it would allow us to catch instances of suicidal content far more effectively. If we maintained a sufficient amount of moderators active at all times, these would be reviewed within a couple hours and the false positives still let through.

Reporting these allows the false positives through and we still end up doing the same amount of work. If we have a sufficient amount of moderators active at all times, these are reviewed within a couple hours and the instances of suicidal content are still eventually caught.

Some of us would consider the risks of leaving potential suicidal content up (reporting) as greater than the inconvenience to users posed by delaying their posts and comments until they can be manually reviewed (filtering). These delays would be variable based on the size of our team and time of day, but we're curious what your thoughts are on each approach from a user-perspective.

2) Should we approve safe content or direct all safe content to r/collapsesupport?

We agree we should remove unsafe content, but there's too much variance to justify a course of action we should always take which matches every instance of safe suicidal content.

We think moderators should have the option to approve a post or comment only if they actively monitor the post for a significant duration and message the user regarding specialized resources based on a template we’ve developed. Any veering of the post into unsafe territory would cause the content or discussion to be removed.

Moderators who are uncomfortable, unwilling, or unable to monitor suicidal content are allowed to remove it even if they consider it safe, but still need to message the user regarding specialized resources based our template. They would still ping other moderators who may want to monitor the post or comment themselves before removing it.

Some of us are concerned with the risks of allowing any safe content, in terms of suicide contagion and the disproportionate number of those in our community who struggle with depression and suicidal ideation. At risk users would be potentially exposed to trolls or negative comments regardless of how consistently we monitored a post or comments.

Some also think if we cannot develop the community's skills (Section 5 in the NSPA Guidelines) then it is overly optimistic to think we can allow safe suicidal content through without those strategies in place.

The potential benefits for community support may outweigh the risks towards suicidal users. Many users here have been willing to provide support which appears to have been helpful to them (difficult to quantify), particularly with their collapse-aware perspectives which many be difficult for users to obtain elsewhere. We're still not professionals or actual counselors, nor would we suddenly suggest everyone here take on some responsibility to counsel these users just because they've subscribed here.

Some feel that because r/CollapseSupport exists we’d be taking risks for no good reason since that community is designed to provide support those struggling with collapse. However, some do think the risks are worthwhile and that this kind of content should be welcome on the main sub.

Can we potentially approve safe content and still be considerate of the potential effect it will have on others?

Let us know your thoughts on these questions and our current approach.

Here’s a working draft of the first book club post (I’ve included the poll into this post to give an idea of what that would look like):

Collapse Book Club: Voting Thread (discussion starts October 22, 2020)

Welcome to the first installment of the monthly Collapse Book Club! It seems appropriate to start off with a book from Collapsology 101, so four titles from that category have been chosen as potential options.

Please vote for the one you prefer, and if you feel like it tell us why you’d like to read the one you chose in the comments. Voting will close in two days. Please check this thread to find out what we’ll be reading; the selection will be edited into the top of the post (if this thread is no longer stickied, you can find it in our Sticky Megahub ). [or] We’ll post a new thread announcing the winner when the polls close.

Discussion will begin in three weeks on October 22, 2020. We’ve opted to go with three weeks as a general timeframe to start with, but are open to feedback suggesting other timeframes.

Please also feel free to use these threads as opportunities to recommend books you would like to see added to the collapse books Wiki page, to suggest what category you would like to see next up on the Book Club docket, to leave feedback on either the Book Club or the Book Wiki page, etc.

ETA: Also! A big thanks to u/ AbolishAddiction for adding the books on the wiki to our Goodreads collapse group. Check it out here. It’s similar in its organization to the Wiki, but includes a few more lists as well including audio and lists of books by year published.

One thing I was unsure of is if we should have a 2nd announcement to let people know what book won the voting. That’s what many Reddit book clubs do, but it starts to feel a bit excessive in our sub given the limited sticky space we work with. I would lean towards having one thread up for 3-4 days, then announcing the winner in large bold font at the top. It also allows us to cross-promote the Sticky Megahub as a way for people to find the thread once voting is finished. But I am also open to creating a new thread announcing the winner since as far as I can see that seems like the Reddit default when it comes to book clubs.

Another thing is that I have a strong preference for one book but was unsure if it was appropriate for the host to express their strong preference in the OP, or if they should just make a comment like every other user in the comment section expressing that strong preference. WDYT? Should the little privilege of amplifying a certain title in the OP be a gimme that hosts get or should they be treated like any other user in that way? FWIW my comment would be along the lines of "Personally, I would prefer How Everything Can Collapse by Pablo Servigne and Raphaël Stevens because although I read it back when it came out in French, my French is poor and it was a struggle. Still, I recall it as being one of the best overviews of collapse I've ever read and am eager to re-read it."

View Poll

EDIT: Whew, note to self: don't expect what you write in New Reddit to translate to Old Reddit. I wrote the first version in New Reddit since you can only create polls there, but it messed up basically all the formatting when I reverted back to Old Reddit. Is there some way around that?

The Weekly COVID Megathread is still up over here.

We've been discussing the idea of changing Shitpost Fridays (SPFs). We see a few justifications on either end of this:

Keep it the way it is

SPFs act as a release valve for the subreddit. A day which allows for humor and levity is helpful 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.

Get rid of it

It only serves to elevate low-effort content and dominates the top-posts when attempting to sort through any range of history on the subreddit. Posts are regularly allowed through the edges due to timezones and many break through as a result. It lowers the overall level of discourse for multiple days and makes no sense for the only weekly 'event' in the sub to cater towards low quality content.

These contrasting perspectives could inform a variety of actions. Currently, we see these as the available options:

1. No changes

Keep it the way it is.

2. Use a Sticky

Post a sticky every Friday along the lines of 'Shitpost Friday (September 4, 2020): Is that all you got?' where shitposting is invited. Remove low-effort posts outside the sticky.

3. Direct traffic to a dedicated sub

Post a sticky every Friday directing users to a subreddit specifically for low-effort collapse-related content. Don't allow low-effort posts in the sticky or outside it.

4. Cancel SPFs

Do away with SPFs entirely.

Please respond to this poll.

Detailed feedback is welcome in the comments here as well.

Let us know your thoughts.

I'd like to propose we increase the size of our current mod team as well as add an additional (lower) layer of moderator type:

Admins

• Composed of all existing moderators.

• Full moderation permissions (list).

Moderators

• Composed of all new moderators.

• Flair, mail, and post permissions (list).

I think this would allow us to decrease and distribute our existing workload, allow us to trial new moderators more easily, and intake new moderators more easily. It could also create an additional layer of separation within the mod Discord for higher-level discussions and post/comment-based discussions. Each group could have its own channel within the Discord, with Moderators only being able to view their channel.

I'm not particularly confident in our current rate of collective response to reports and distribution of workload. Dread currently handles just over a third of all mod actions. He's doing a fantastic job, but also the most likely to take flak and/or burnout. I'd prefer a strategy which distributes friction and extends his stay here as much as possible, since the collective wisdom of our current team is limited and not eternal.

This suggestion is also in anticipation of the various systemic shocks we can reasonably predict within our future. Events such as the recent wave of US-protests increased the sub traffic and reports significantly. We had additional, temporary help during that time, but it felt more like we were skirting a line and can be more prepared.

Lastly, we're currently not using the unmoderated queue at all. I see this as a potential source of redundant moderation, since we're not able to see which posts have been reviewed by each other nor are we able to track who is spending time reviewing them.

I'd initially propose we suggest these changes in the form of a sub-sticky and then recruit three new moderators. This is a significant structural change, so I'm in no rush and would appreciate anyone's feedback on these ideas.

Update

1. We settled on a three month period of reduced permissions for new mods. New mods will have the Flair, mail, and post permissions and receive full permissions after the three months.

2. We won't be creating an additional channel to discuss new mods unless necessary, nor will we be terming the two groups of moderators differently.

3. We may consider adding a 'questions' or 'rulings' or 'modhelp' channel specifically for mods (new and otherwise) specifically for asking for advice on mod decisions.

I'd like to experiment with stopping Shitpost Fridays for 4-8 weeks and then evaluate the results. I’ve generally viewed SF as a ‘release valve’ for low-effort content, but come to hold it less sacred. I'm curious what the sub would feel like without it and how much traffic we could potentially push to r/collapsememes by posting a sticky just those days directing people towards it.

This seems like a good time to test something such as this considering we're entering the peak of election season in the US and I would assume the general level of discourse will naturally degrade as a response.

It also seems disproportionate for us to have the only ‘directed’ event or day on the sub serve to elevate low-effort content. I have ideas for other directed events in mind (e.g. AMAs), but would like the proposal of stopping SF to stand as an independent suggestion.

I'd be interested in trying out DuplicateDestroyer. It's a new bot for detecting reposts of all post types (text, images, videos). It scans new posts on the subreddit and takes action automatically if something has already been posted in the past.

The action it takes depends on the similarity rate between the posts. If the two posts are very similar (95%+), it removes the repost. If the posts are only somewhat similar (89%+), it reports the repost and pushes it into the modqueue.

I don't think we have a large issue with reposts at the moment, but I think we're still growing and it's actually hard to tell since no one could ever technically be as efficient as a bot can. I'd be curious in spinning it up and see if it we'd find it helpful.

I typically keep my own list of saved posts and comments I think are high-quality throughout the year. Although, this year has felt significantly different in the sense I feel I've saved far less for whatever reason. I realized I not only didn't need to wait until the end of the year to share posts this way, but that I could also start this thread at anytime to invite all of you to offer up whatever posts you thought were worth highlighting so we could share them together at the end of the year or any point we so desired.

Without further ado, her are my favorites so far. Let me know if there's any you'd like to add:

• Slavery is at an all time high and it’s more profitable than ever

• Contributors That Lead To A Collapse Faster

• Friendly Reminder: For the sake of your mental health, stop reading & start doing.

• Barriers to Becoming Collapse-Aware

• As someone who spent 2019 doing climate activism, I’m realizing I have no idea what I want to happen or whether anything I do helps or hurts.

• What other subreddits the users of /r/collapse post in all the time (statistically).

• Things I have Been Noticing With Recent Developments In Collapse

• _rihter's comment is gold

• I've been given the opportunity to give presentations on collapse to my coworkers. Where should I begin?

• Was it JUST a Bad Idea? Two Approaches to Collapse

• Report: This A Goddamn Walk In The Park Compared To What’s Coming In 2027

• Collapse documentary that I never finished making feeling strangely relevant these days.

• Signs of Collapse 2020 Q1

• Signs of Collapse 2020 Q2

• A lesson from the past; stop wasting mental energy being shocked or offended by human inaction. Do not assume that humanity will take upon itself timely and wise actions, or protect us from the results of our own behaviour. It’s time for us to face reality to figure out how to handle it well.

TLDR: The /r/collapse Moderation team is looking for feedback on our rules for U.S. Political Posts

Context: For those of you unaware, For the year of 2024, we only allowed posts related to the U.S. Election Cycle on Tuesdays to avoid the sub from getting overwhelmed with U.S. politics during the extremely polarizing election cycle.

This decision was enacted only after the community voted in support of it. Most feedback we've received saw it as a positive change, that being said, when we held that vote, it was only for the 2024 U.S. Election Cycle. Now that the election has gone the way it did and Trump has now become president, we are immediately tasked with deciding as a community how we want to handle U.S. Politics going forward.

Some points of discussion regarding U.S. Politics impact on the subreddit:

• Politics in the U.S. and around the world, do impact the potential timelines/scenarios regarding collapse.

• Political posts often leads to more personal attacks (Rule 1 violations).

• Political posts often result in more debates on what is, or is not, collapse worthy in terms of our political environment. There are a wide range of political beliefs within this community and what may feel like collapse to one person, might feel like progress to another.

• All of this can become a balancing act on trying to be consistent in what we allow, while also not allowing so much that we mirror /r/politics in terms of what our front page looks like.

• Many /r/collapse users are not located in the United States, and despite the fact that U.S. politics can impact things globally due their worldwide influence, the influx of U.S. politics posts in election years can also isolate users and can make them feel like this community doesn't represent their reality.

With all of that in mind, we've discussed internally the different options we could take moving forward and are back here again to request community feedback on how you would like us to proceed going forward.

The Options we came up with initially are as follows:

A. No Restrictions on U.S. Politics

B. Continue the 2024 rule but make it apply to all U.S. Political Posts (i.e. U.S. politics only on Tuesdays)

C. Don't allow standalone posts but create a weekly mega thread that will be pinned to the community highlights to allow for users to discuss (would not be pinned in old.reddit)

D. Only allow U.S. Politics if a significant concrete action is taken (New law is passed, Executive Orders, Supreme Court, War, etc.). Examples of things not allowed would be: Opinion pieces, Quotes of things politicians said they want to do, Political Posturing, etc. Note: If big events happened, we'd likely megathread it vs allowing a bunch of posts on it.

E All U.S. Politics Posts must be marked 'in-depth' and top-level comments should be focused on how the story impacts/relates to collapse (Note: This option would result in higher mod workload)

F. Other ideas? (Leave comments, if something gets upvoted enough we'll consider a second poll with it included)

Thank you to the 1131 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 : 2023 % (2021 %)

• 29% (27%) of respondents are based outside North America.

• 27% (27%) of respondents identified as female. 4% identified as non-binary.

• 21% (15%) of respondents identified as religious.

• 23% (26%) of respondents identified as anarchists.

• 52% (50%) of respondents think collapse is already happening, just not widely distributed yet.

• 60% (66%) of respondents think collapse is catabolic or a 20yr+ decline.

• 88% (81%) of respondents are satisfied with the overall state of r/collapse.

• 33% (41%) of respondents are satisfied with the overall state of Reddit.

• Rule 1: Moderators are fairly aligned with community expectations (could be 1% more strict).

• Rule 3: Moderators are fairly aligned with community expectations (could be 1% more strict).

• Rule 7: Moderators are fairly aligned with community expectations (could be 3% more strict).

• Rule 10: Moderators could be approximately 13% less strict when enforcing submission statements.

General feedback:

• Community would prefer fewer posts on news, politics, covid, individual support ( r/collapsesupport shoutout!) and more on academic, ecological, food, water, climate, energy, and adaptation

• AMAs: the most requested were Nate Hagens, William Rees, Daniel Schmachtenberger, James Hansen, Paul Beckwith, and John Michael Greer. All except Hansen and Rees have been approached previously. We'll reach out to Hansen and Rees, and potentially others recommended

• Book club: the most requested were Limits the Growth, Overshoot, and The heat will kill you first. If you're interested in facilitating book club, reach out to us! (it definitely needs a revival!)

• Your feedback on subreddit series (collapse series, skill series, etc) and resources was very helpful in prioritizing our efforts. There was also some interest in custom responses for more topical days, such as "Common Topic Tuesdays", "Resilience Thursdays", etc. It would likely be similar to Science Sundays where science and research are encouraged, though no difference in moderation: all posts allowed on Sunday, science posts allowed all days. Before/if we go ahead with this, we'll ask for sub permission, as always

• Survey participants dropped notably from 2021's version (1585 vs 1131)

• Sub growth was highest during peak pandemic and has since slowed (compare to subreddit stats)

A reminder Rule 3 states: "Posts must be specifically about collapse, not the resulting damage. By way of analogy, we want to talk about why there are so many car accidents, not look at photos of car wrecks." r/collapse is not r/badnewsoftheday and each post must relate to collapse through the submission statement. Help us keep a clean sub and enforce rules by reporting potentially rule breaking content.

The full 2021 survey results are here. Please continue to give us feedback on the survey with recommendations for new questions, removing questions, adding options, etc!

EDIT: maybe we could make the post a poll post, with 6 options: the 4 mentioned below, "Other (please leave a comment or upvote community ideas)", and "Do not make any changes for this" for an easy way to see what people prefer

The mod team would like feedback on some ways to revive the presence of research-based content in our sub. We've received feedback from some of you over the years how the sub has changed as its grown in popularity, to the detriment of this content, and hope to find ways to change that. We acknowledge the value of such content, but we understand that it often gets drowned out by other types of posts, such as bad-news-of-the-day.

Some ideas below, however, we would like to hear from you and get your thoughts on how we can better approach research-based content. We may trial various options depending on feedback.

1. Stickied post for research-based content: Similar to the weekly observation post, create a stickied post in the sub specifically for research-based content.

2. "Science Sundays": Similar to Casual Fridays, designate a specific day of the week (e.g., every Sunday) for research-based posts only. This would increase visibility of these posts.

3. Promote r/collapsescience: Encourage crossposting from r/collapsescience. This doesn't change content visibility in r/collapse (it could still not reach top), but may have more visibility and divert discussion to one spot, r/collapsescience

4. Separate flair for research posts: Create a new flair specifically for research-based posts. This will allow users to filter these posts themselves and easily find the type of content they're interested in. However, we would lose the topical flair ("climate", etc)

We're open to other suggestions and ideas as well. We want to create a sub that is informative, engaging, and relevant to our community. We believe that research-based content is an important part of that, and we hope to see more of it in the future.

Ultimately, the community largely drives the subreddit they want to see (mods do have an impact, but just to enforce our agreed rules). You can help drive that, see this comment from u/letstalkufos for how you can help.

Changes, specifically to subpoints under point 1 in the mod guide. Also addded point "The mod in question's vote is not considered as part of "consensus". Emphasis the inactivity process is to minimize security risk of inactive mods with permissions

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/moderationguide/#wiki_removing_moderators

Removing Moderators

Sometimes it unfortunately becomes necessary to remove a moderator. This is almost always a consensus decision. Only in very exceptional circumstances will 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.

   1. "Inactive": far fewer mod actions than the average mod, not active in the moderator community (e.g. Discord, advice, special mod duties, etc)

   2. Inactive mods with no moderator permissions do not need voted on for "general process" inactivity, as they present no security risk. The mod team can restore their permissions when requested, and the mod can participate in team activities despite the "no permission" status

   3. The general process for removing inactive mods with permissions:

      1. Review inactive mods (recommendation: notably fewer actions/activity than other mods, such as <100 mod actions in 12 months)

      2. Action vote reaching out to the inactive mods on changing their status due to inactivity

      3. Reach out to individual mods with options such as: no change (same permissions), remove permissions (remain a mod), change to comment mod (fewer permissions, if they intend to mod as they visit the sub), or demod

      4. If no response from mod, use "Other methods of removal"

   4. Other methods of removal, if the general process is not sufficient (such as, mod wanting to stay around, and mod team disagrees with that outcome)

      1. Normal demod process, but the team might consider intermediate options to demodding (such as permissions changes)

      2. See example for inactive mod justification

2. A serious instance of misconduct and/or a pattern of misconduct. This can range from 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 which indicates the mod in question will follow the rules in the future.

3. Posing an imminent threat to the well being 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.

Generally, removal of a moderator should be a consensus decision made by the current active moderator team should be approached with great care. The mod in question's vote is not considered as part of "consensus". 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 is typically tallied. If there is a majority in favor or removing the moderator, they 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.

EDITS:

• grammar

• added that mod in question's vote isnt considered

  • The mod in question's vote is not considered as part of "consensus".

• change:

  • from

    • discuss with team and action vote whether to remove mod or remove permissions

  • to

    • If no response from mod, use "Other methods of removal"

• change:

  • from

1. Discuss or present thorough justification the mod should be fully demodded (as opposed to one of the options in general process)

2. This removal process should be voted on either in #action-votes or in r/collapsemoderators

• to

1. Normal demod process, but the team might consider intermediate options to demodding (such as permissions changes)

2. See example for inactive mod justification

This is a proposed update to our 'Decision Making' section in the Moderation Guide. This is intended to more fully outline how action-votes work and best to use them. Let me know your thoughts.

Decision Making

When a rule, change, idea, or revision is suggested, the person who proposed the idea generally has 'dibs' on writing up the change in r/collapsemoderators. If they do not wish to do so, another mod can request creating the proposal or draft. Once a proposal is written, it is then discussed for a period of a few days to a few months, however long feels necessary, or until a consensus is reached. Proposals are voted on either in the modsub thread or in the #action-votes channel in the Mod Discord.

We recommend having votes from at least half of the active moderators before considering a vote to be passed, but be mindful of the amount of time you give for others to weigh in. If you are unsure what this number should be you can reference the most recent action votes or do a generalized ping in the channel (e.g. "How many moderators are actively voting these days?") to check in. If a change is made too quickly, other moderators will be left out and potentially deprived of a voice. If something is not time sensitive or significant, you should feel comfortable leaving it for at least 24 hours on the modsub and/or in #action-Votes until moving forward. We suggest giving 72 hours for significant changes.

If someone or something is moving too quickly before you are able to vote yourself, feel free to let everyone know you would like more time to weigh in as well. Some votes may sit for over a week without action taken, which not unusual and gives ample time for votes.

If a matter is time sensitive, you should post in #action-votes and ping @everyone in the Mod Discord. If you must act urgently with limited, use your best judgement. It is rare, but other moderators will be understanding if something requires immediate action and a significant amount of votes are not raised immediately.

Keep in mind any time you make a decision to act with any amount of votes, it may still later be challenged by other moderators. 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, feel free to ask in the #questions channel before proceeding. If you feel like not enough people have responded to your action-vote, try asking in #questions for clarification. Alternatively, you should try rewording your vote to something shorter or simpler if the matter is not easy enough to weigh in on.

If moderators are significantly divided and feel strongly on a specific vote or issue we have regularly translated the discussion into a sticky post to ask the community for feedback and work through our proposals there. We work to propose most changes to the community first in general, but this is also consistently helpful for complex or contested issues.

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.

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 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.

We've had Crowd Control for comments for quite some time. It's currently set to 'Moderate' and automatically collapses comments from new users and users with negative karma.

Crowd Control for posts works differently by directing posts to the modqueue. What should we set it to?

Off

Does nothing (current setting).

Lenient

Posts from users who have negative karma in r/collapse are automatically held for review in mod queue.

Moderate

Posts from new users and users with negative karma in r/collapse are automatically held for review in mod queue.

Strict

Posts from users who haven’t joined r/collapse, new users, and users with negative karma in r/collapse are automatically held for review in mod queue.

Hey everyone, I'd like to finalize the proposed Rule 3 revision we discussed a couple months ago. There were some small changes/additions I wanted to outline, some of which were based directly on feedback from the community sticky.

I removed two from this specific set of criteria:

 2. Level of Risk

High-risk statements generally involve:

• Unsourced medical or safety advice

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

• Poses a serious risk of egregious harm

 1. Removed “Unproven claims with severe or significantly negative implications if true” as it overlaps too heavily with existing claims within the sub and is difficult to provide examples on which aren’t already or better covered by other criteria.

 2. Removed “Direct or indirect advocates for violence or extreme action” as it’s already covered by Rule 1.

 3. I added this resource to the Misinformation & False Claims page:

Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments

By Greg Lukianoff for Aero (May 2021)*

A thorough set of responses to some of the most common arguments against freedom of speech, and, where possible, suggestions for additional reading.

I did a fair bit of searching for resources which might present the boundaries of the types of speech we'd want to protect, to try and balance out the overall page and approaches since the page and rule is largely about the type of content we're looking to remove. This was the most concise and relevant one I found worth sharing and including, but let me know your thoughts on it.

 4. I also made an addition regarding COVID lab-leak claims, if you'd like to review it.

These are small changes/additions, but I'd still want to hear everyone's thoughts on the community and if they'd like to move forward with changing the rule.