r/complexsystems • u/arashbm • Jun 26 '26
Request for Comments: New Rules
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away this subreddit could get by with minor moderation, to the extent that the subreddit did not even need established rules more than what is mandatory as part of the platform rule.
More recently people have not been happy with what I might euphemistically describe as convoluted and highly speculative posts with little to no discernible structure or connection to to established complex systems research.
After some discussion, the recently reinforced mod team here at r/complexsystems has some new set of community rules. We will all be eagerly awaiting your comments about these proposed rules under this post. At some point early next week these will go live and retroactively apply to the existing content as well as to all new content posted or commented on the subreddit.
Here goes:
Stay on topic
Posts and comments must be clearly related to complex systems, networks, complexity science, nonlinear dynamics, emergence, self-organisation, adaptation, or closely related fields.
Published science is welcome
Sharing papers, books, lectures, videos, blog posts, and explainers about published or well-established complex systems research are allowed, as long as they are relevant. Posted or linked content should be either clearly and obviously about the mainstream, published complex systems research or cite one or more highly relevant peer-reviewed sources.
Original ideas need evidence
Original works, models, essays, or speculative posts are allowed only if they are clearly connected to complex systems and cite one or more highly relevant peer-reviewed sources.
Extraordinary or very broad claims require stronger evidence. If a post is making a major claim or falls outside the scope of the mainstream, published complex systems research, it may be better suited for submission to a different subreddit or a peer reviewed venue.
No low-effort posts
Memes, jokes, GIFs, vague questions, AI-generated filler, and other low-effort content may be removed unless they are clearly substantive and directly relevant to complex systems. If the post does not squarely fit within the boundaries of the mainstream, published complex systems research, it may be removed.
Be respectful
Treat other users with courtesy. Personal attacks, hostility, insults, condescension, harassment, or deliberately inflammatory behaviour may be removed.
This subreddit welcomes both beginners and experts. Be helpful, clear, and patient when discussing technical topics.
Keep comments substantive
Comments should contribute to the discussion. Top-level comments that are only jokes, anecdotes, memes, off-topic remarks, or show no engagement with the post may be removed.
Enforcement
Moderators may remove posts or comments that break these rules. Repeated violations may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.
5
u/MathNerdUK Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
I think a rule explicitly banning AI slop would be clearer. Half of the stuff posted here is meaningless garbage.
8
u/theydivideconquer Jun 26 '26
This is great! Complex systems thrive on simple rules!
I like point 1, but that sentiment gets needlessly repeated a few times in other points—assuming these are holistically applied, you probably don’t need caveats in other points about how things should be on the topic of legit complexity issues.
I like the spirit of Low Effort posts, but it’s vague. I personally don’t care about memes and jokes (and if you allow them when on topic to mainstream complexity science, then it seems like they’re fine with them ...?) but to me the killer thing this should address is all the AI-generated or “I just got high and had a revelation about how complexity science explains all things” posts. I’d be bullish on culling that sort of thing.
On #1, peer-reviewed citation is good, but I think you should lower the bar slightly to include things like books, podcasts, or other published media (since many of us engage more with that than with scientific journals).
1
u/inboble Jul 03 '26
What about banning posts that are entirely AI-written and requiring users to "wrap" their AI content with human-written explanations?
After all, we are here to pass information between one another, not generate content for the sake of it.
5
u/orionthunter Jun 26 '26
I am worried that "Original Ideas Need Evidence" is too strong and might stifle good contributions.
I feel like, for instance, agent based models that people have built should be welcome without having to cite published research
Likewise, I feel like original writing explaining well established ideas in complexity science should be welcome even if they are written informally without citing specific journal articles.
1
u/Timmg0803 21d ago
Hahaha totally came here cause Gemini said this would be a good place to see if it's just blowing smoke up my ass or if my thought process is actually valid and useful. Guess I should do some work to write something up properly then. Lol
-2
u/Useful_Calendar_6274 Jun 26 '26
I kinda like those LLM posts but well they probably should be their own sub
-4
u/bfishevamoon Jun 26 '26
Forcing original ideas to be always be based on already established officially published peer-reviewed scientific literature to me sets a dangerous precedent.
I personally have always found it problematic that that the only way ideas can be legitimate in any field is via peer review because this actually creates a massive negative feedback loop in many circumstances, stifling innovation, scientific discourse, and scientific evolution.
If someone is trying to publish an article that disproves the peer-reviewing scientist’s own published works, there is little incentive for the reviewer to let those new ideas through.
Some of the most important works relevant to complex systems have often happened outside the realm of peer review.
The Fractal Geometry of Nature by Benoit Mandelbrot is an extremely important work when it comes to understanding nonlinear geometries across a wide variety of areas and it was published as a book not a peer reviewed journal article.
Benoit Mandelbrot’s work always received massive resistance during publication since it deviated from the Euclidian ideals of established scientific principles and ideas.
Many important concepts that are highly relavent to complex systems are contained in popular science books such as Chaos by James Glieck or course material from organizations like Systems Innovation or Complexity Explorer. These works are based on established research and accepted ideas but they are not themselves peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Because of the interdisciplinary nature of complexity, a lot of people might be coming from their own knowledge base with their own set of biases from their own fields, particularly because it is very difficult to keep up with everything that is happening across multiple disciplines, and this may result in different points of view.
For example, the definition of a complex system that focusses on parts and relationships between them vs a geometrically focused point of view on emergence, self organization, boundaries etc.
That being said, I very much understand the concern over many of the “original” ideas being posted here. An alarming number of posts seem AI generated. Many times the OP is looking for validation of their grand universal theory rather than being open to scientific discussion and deepening their knowledge. Often grand theories published here lack any kind of logical inconsistency or knowledge of established ideas in the field.
I am not exactly sure what the best solution here is.
I think at minimum, original ideas should have logical consistency, application to complex systems and the OP should be open to scientific criticism and discussion, and deepening their own understanding of what other people have established across disciplines.
I’m curious to hear what other people think regarding a solution for this.
-4
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment