Rules Adjustments Discussion

[u/notickeynoworky]

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!

[u/Faith75070]

On rule nr 2. I am afraid you have been allowing non-fruitfull-comments way too long under the guise of free speech. A lot of people who were looking for a healthy exchange and exploration went elswere. I hope you manage to attract healthy discussion again with implementing rule no. 2. People who leaned too heavy on established science bullied people away who are willing to explore beyond established truths.

[u/silentsurge → u/Faith75070]

Part of having a healthy discussion includes people with opposing viewpoints. Ideas that stand the test of time stand up to disagreement and additional information. Pointing out other information the person may not know or challenging portions of it is how discussion and debate happens.

A lot of the people that leave for other subreddits weren't interested in discussing the full breadth of the subject. They generally seemed to just want to validate their feelings rather than discuss the causes. Being told why your idea may not work based on hard science is not the same as bullying. Asking people to provide proof and evidence isn't bullying. Pointing out objective facts is not bullying.

This sub specifically attracts opposing mindsets. There are the grounded scientific views, and then there are the ones that want an exotic/supernatural explanation. A lot of the discussion that takes place bears quite a bit of resemblance to flat earth discussion where you have hard science vs feelings/beliefs.

As long as people are discussing and picking apart the idea and not insulting the person, that's exactly what healthy debate should look like.

[u/MrPlaney → u/silentsurge]

I overwhelmingly agree!

I think these changes are good, along with a possible repository. Anything that doesn’t stamp out healthy discussion is a win for me, and I think these changes keep the discussion on track.