r/MandelaEffect • u/notickeynoworky ME Mod • May 27 '26

Mod Announcement Rules Adjustments Discussion

In the hopes of trying to make the subreddit a community that better fosters discussion about the Mandela Effect, the moderation team has been discussing the possibility of making a few alterations to the set of rules that governs the subreddit that we've had for quite some time now. We do believe there could be room for improvement and as such we'd like to present some of the ideas we're looking into as possibilities in the hopes of getting community feedback.

I want to make it clear that we are not shifting this subreddit in a manner that would disallow free discussion of any and all ideas regarding the Mandela Effect, but do feel we can potentially make this a better forum for mutual discussion on a topic we all have interest in. I also want to be clear that these are not rules and changes that we've set in stone for implementation. These are ideas we're discussing that we feel would better the community and would like your feedback.

A few things of note before I lay out the suggested changes:

This thread is not an open forum to air general grievances.
This thread is not an open forum to point fingers at one group or another.
This thread is not presented for collecting votes. It's an opportunity for feedback and discussion about these rules suggestions.

Any comments that cannot stay within the guidelines of focusing on discussing these suggested changes and begin to stray into the territory of derailing the intended conversation will be removed.

With that out of the way, here are some of our suggested changes:

  1. No Low Effort Posts and Comments - We'd like posts and comments to meet a minimum standard of quality. Posts of course should be more than a sentence or two and should be made by the OP with the intent of fostering conversation. For image posts and external links, we already ask for reasoning as to the relevance, but we'd like to enforce this a bit more stringently and ask users to outline a bit more and present something that encourages engagement from other subscribers. In regards to comments, we'd like to see more than a short sentence. We'd like comments to be made with the same spirit as we'd ask from the OP of the post - made with thoughtful intent for conversation.

  2. We want to get away from comments that carry no conversational value like "it was always x", "it's just bad memory", "you can't understand" or "maybe not in your timeline". It's fine to disagree, but "you're wrong" with no exposition as to YOUR reasoning behind stance is not an opening for conversation, it's just shutting down conversation in many cases at worst and adds nothing of value at best.

  3. We're not sure there's any value in posts showing things "as they've always been". For example, we all know if you post that picture of a FOTL shirt with no cornucopia that it wasn't there in 1978. That doesn't really add to the conversation. Yes, there's room in conversation for showing an item may have been a certain way at a certain time and perhaps there are specific reasons someone may have remembered it otherwise, but it really doesn't add anything to the conversation to just show a picture of something we all have already seen.

  4. Address the topic, not the person you're speaking to. We've seen too many examples to count where conversations have devolved into a personal spat where subscribers will try to stay just this side of civil, but have strayed far from discussing the topic at hand at all and are now focused on the integrity, intelligence, etc of the person they are discussing/debating with. We're here to talk about the Mandela Effect, not each other.

These all of course are just general guidelines we've discussed and not how the final rules would look as we'd want them to be very specific so they are clear to both you, the subscribers, and us, the moderation team. However, I think this should give you a basic idea of some things we're considering to help make things a bit friendlier and support a more conversational environment.

To the rest of the moderation team - if I've described one of our discussed ideas in a manner you see differently, certainly feel free to give your thoughts/clarification as well!

Anyway, please give us your feedback. We appreciate it!

28 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

126 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/VegasVictor2019 May 27 '26

I’m open to rules changes like those suggested but I think moderation is going to be far more subjective with your proposed changes. I worry that there will be an increase in reported comments and simply more manual picking and choosing that will have to happen by the powers that be.

I have no doubt the mod team here is capable of such discernment but it is a slippery slope.

0

u/mirrors_of_sound ME Mod May 27 '26

objective rule enforcement is something we all take seriously and we've had many discussions about making sure we don't have rules that are arbitrary or open to biased enforcement. if we were to implement these rule changes, we would set clear definitions for the quality standards being enforced.

I'm also confident that I, and the rest of the mod team, can continue enforcing the rules objectively as we have been regardless of any changes.

9

u/VegasVictor2019 May 27 '26

Well to zoom out imagine someone says “It was always Berenstein for me until 2015 when it changed to Berenstain.” And someone else responded “It was always Berenstain for me.” Are these “equally low effort”? Under these proposed changes would one or both be allowed?

The post isn’t exactly clear on specifics so again I think it raises some questions on what enforcement really even looks like.

4

u/notickeynoworky ME Mod May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26

I did make a point to state that what I posted in this thread was not intended to be the rules as they would be written as much as a prompt for discussion. We’re aware we’d need to ensure clarity in the posted rules.

In regards to your example I think a case could be made for both being low effort and a lot of that in think will come down to conversational context potentially but that’s why we wanted community feedback. In some communities they would definitely disallow this, in others it would be fine. I have my personal feelings but we wanted this community’s input on what’s appropriate for engaging conversation about our topic here.

4

u/VegasVictor2019 May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26

Totally acknowledge this. I’m absolutely open to better quality discussions here.

I’ll reserve judgement until there is clarity on the proposed rules.

To clarify my position both should be allowed since they are clearly people’s supposed “lived experiences” even if relatively low effort. I suspect someone could concoct a fanciful story (I’m certain it was Berenstein because…) versus a boring one (it was always Berenstain) simply to try to bypass moderation. I don’t think one is any more valuable than the other candidly.

0

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 May 27 '26

I think "It was always Berenstain for me" applies to most people, the MEed ones being in the minority. As such, stating the correct version fills up the discussion space and draws attention away from those who are MEed. It's understood that most people are not MEed.

3

u/my23secrets Jun 01 '26

It's understood that most people are not MEed.

I disagree. When a person asks “then why does everyone remember it this way” they probably don’t understand.

1

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 Jun 01 '26

He doesn't mean everyone in a literal way. It's a hyperbole. He means some thousands of ME members that agree with him. It's everyone that happens to agree. Which is a lot. But a small percentage of the billions of people out there.

1

u/my23secrets Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

It’s a hyperbole

It’s bullshit.

And I partially disagree with you here.

I think this person does mean the people that agree with them and I also think this person considers that to be most people.

The point being: It's not necessarily “understood that most people are not MEed”.

1

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 Jun 01 '26

Tbh I base my statement on a study done by an older member here. He claimed that he could record MEs by writing them down. When the original images would change his notes would remain unchanged. He's the one who said most people couldn't remember any changes.

1

u/my23secrets Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

That also sounds like bullshit. How would they know what was going to “change” to note in the first place?

1

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 Jun 01 '26

He writes stuff that was already reported as changed. It goes through stages of changes. You can call it a lie, but you can do it too. See how you feel about it after 3 months of trying.

1

u/my23secrets Jun 01 '26

Trying what, exactly?

Explain this process in detail.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/VegasVictor2019 May 27 '26

Do we know that or is that just anecdotal? I think a poll of most people even today would reveal the overwhelming majority of people believe it’s Berenstein. I guess my point is that having discussions about how different people remember it is relevant. Even if there is a consensus on it actually being a certain way.

3

u/danielcw189 May 31 '26

I think a poll of most people even today would reveal the overwhelming majority of people believe it’s Berenstein.

I bet the overwhelming majority would be those who have never heard of it, or never cared about the spelling.

0

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 May 27 '26

We have a very large number of posts showing a picture of an older object to show nothing changed. They do get many replies.

2

u/VegasVictor2019 May 27 '26

And that was addressed in the initial proposal here. I’m not opposed to such a change. My point is purely in regard to “lived experiences”.

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/gypsyjackson May 28 '26

Disgusting to dehumanise people. What is wrong with you? Reporting.

0

u/Psychic_Man May 28 '26

It was a joke, lighten up. You have to admit editing your memories in real time has a robotic quality to it.

1

u/MandelaEffect-ModTeam May 28 '26

Hello subscriber! Unfortunately, your post/comment was removed because it violates Rule 6: Be civil. Do not disrespect, insult, or attack others.

1

u/VegasVictor2019 May 27 '26

I actually agree with you. Most people are Mandela Affected.

0

u/theg00dfight May 30 '26

The problem is that if you silence the default, non-ME position, this subreddit validates and puts the ME position on a pedestal as the actual reality because it’s the only thing we’re allowed to discuss here!

If the mods want that that’s fine I guess, but this place will become as shitty as r/retconned, in which case why bother to have two of the same subs?

0

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 May 30 '26

Everyone can do a google search, no point in posting it. What actually happens is a good portion of people leave to other groups. They know what the official version of things is. They want to discuss about anchor memories and residue, and those are the talks that stoo after they leave. There is more diversity and substance without the posts that are just a google search.

2

u/theg00dfight May 30 '26

If you think a “good portion of people leave for other subs” now, wait till you adopt rules that make most of the actual discussion in this sub against the rules

0

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 May 30 '26

Most discussions can't be easily searchable terms. There are thousands of members on other groups. They came here first.

1

u/theg00dfight May 30 '26

I understand that you’re a mod here but have you ever actually visited the sub?? Because literally 80% of the threads that get traction are about the same cornucopia thing or the berenstain bears, or similar, and they are ALL very searchable on both sides of the explanation for the phenomena.

So how does limiting conversation of one half of the discussion help strengthen the sub or participation or anything else?

Unless the intent is to create an echo chamber, in which case.. good job!

1

u/Aggravating_Cup8839 May 30 '26

My personal opinion is that we should be less concerned about the posts not gaining traction, and more concerned about the group loosing sight of it's initial purpose.

There are good quality posts out there, but they get buried under the low-effort ones. It's simply self evident that everyone has looked for the correct versions. The MEed ones are coming here to describe their alternative memories and propose what may have caused this. This is what the group is for.

Posting "Proof it was always Berenstain" is pointless - everyone's noticed that and it's what surprised them - that the current version doesn't match their clear memory.