I will link the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0ZLPGG_p7M

He begins talking in regards to this issue at 1:08:55.

I realise this is a very sensitive issue. Part of me is scepitcal in taking his claims too seriously and going down such a rabbit hole. I imagine from his perspective it is easier to claim the scale of the atrocities are not true so as not to believe he participated in such evil himself.

A few words of explanation for the change is of course in order. For the first part, concerning top-level follow-up questions, this has been a long running issue on the subreddit, and one with mixed feelings from the users right on up to the mods. In fact it was quite coincidental that the issue was raised in a [META] thread just as we were voting on this matter. The core issue is two fold.

The first is that the follow-up questions often are simply unnecessary, and likely are asking something that a competent top-level answer would already cover, or else are in the other direction and ask something too tangential. The existing rule already alluded to this, but as redone, we aim to make it much clearer what we expect from follow-up questions, better codifying what has already been an existing rule of thumb for some time.

The second, and larger, issue is that even a follow-up question that manages to hit that sweetspot between being related enough to the topic at hand while nevertheless being a novel, new direction on the issue still often serves to distract from the original question asked. This is first of all somewhat unfair to the OP, as it can shift the focus away from what they themselves wanted to know. It is also unfair to the people looking to answer the question, since while a follow-up question can be posted in mere moments, the answer can take hours. We've seen far too many threads where the follow-up question sits at over 1,000 upvotes because it arrived early, and the answer is only at a fraction of that. As a result, it is pushed down in the display of the thread, which only continues to keep it away from primacy of place. And finally it is also unfair to the readers, not only for the same reasons as before as it can mean that they miss the answer present, but also by adding to a false sense of thread activity.

As such, while we aren't going to be entirely disallowing top-level follow-up questions, we will be removing them for the first 12 hours that a thread is live, or until an answer is present, whichever comes first. Even then, we still will be policing them more thoroughly than before, strongly encouraging users to ask their follow-ups by engaging with the answer(s) present, or if seemingly not related enough, by asking a new question as its own submission. Although this change has been something we've discussed for quite some time, theory and practice are two different matters, so we will be revisiting it in a month or so for possible tweaks or changes based on the results we see in the field, and welcome your thoughts and feedback for that process.

For the second part of the change focuses on the related issue of the actual premise of the question. People come here to learn, and often that means they come in with erroneous assumptions which may at times be reflected in the question being asked. We appreciate the issues that this can cause, but nevertheless have found there to be a lot of issues in how users have in the past approached the matter. While in some cases a better understanding of what the OP believes or means with their question can be a necessary component in understanding how to answer it, aggressive interrogation, which has at times resulted in the past, more likely will only make the OP feel self-conscious about their lack of knowledge... which is why they came here to ask in the first place.

This is core to the rules change. To be sure, it is in part simply a restatement of our rules on civility, but it also goes beyond that. We at times will get a string of "Wait, where did you hear that!?" questions, but it is rarely more than posting for the sake of posting, something which we very much discourage here. OPs are not responsible for citing every statement made in their questions, and while it certainly is a practice that can help increase the chance of an answer, it is not that something the moderators can police sufficiently. Aside from such questions about the premise of course needing to be polite, what this rule makes clear is that we expect those questions to be from someone who once clarified, can likely provide a more thorough response. And as with our rules on answers, in doing so the post should demonstrate this quality.

Closely related to this is the issue of correcting the premise, i.e. where you aren't unclear on what OP means, but rather are quite clear they are mistaken. The revamped rule in this case is simply clarifying what has been a long standing rule of thumb, namely that if you are correcting the premise, that is held to essentially the same standards as any other answer. In the case of something like a minor factual error, this can be easily addressed in the answer itself; in the case of a larger, fundamental error of the premise, this would entail explaining why and how it is incorrect, and how it impacts the underlying question.

To be sure, we realize that not all incorrect premises are created equally, and this rule ought not be understood as endorsing them so. In the case of egregious issues, false premises absolutely fall under existing rules about soapboxing, and do get removed as such. Likewise, in the case of such clear-cut factual errors as to render the question illogical, we will often remove those under Moderator's Discretion and suggest correct and how to re-ask it. These, and similar, however, are for the Mod team to evaluate and act on as deemed necessary, and as in all cases, we ask and remind you that using the Report Button or reaching out to us via Modmail is how you can help to enforce the rules of the subreddit. If you see a situation where you believe the premise is off enough to require remedial action, reach out to us about it rather than posting in the thread, and we can determine what the next step ought to be and handle it in our official capacity.

Previous weeks!

Please Be Aware: We expect everyone to read the rules and guidelines of this thread. Mods will remove questions which we deem to be too involved for the theme in place here. We will remove answers which don't include a source. These removals will be without notice. Please follow the rules.

Some questions people have just don't require depth. This thread is a recurring feature intended to provide a space for those simple, straight forward questions that are otherwise unsuited for the format of the subreddit.

Here are the ground rules:

• Top Level Posts should be questions in their own right.

• Questions should be clear and specific in the information that they are asking for.

• Questions which ask about broader concepts may be removed at the discretion of the Mod Team and redirected to post as a standalone question.

• We realize that in some cases, users may pose questions that they don't realize are more complicated than they think. In these cases, we will suggest reposting as a stand-alone question.

• Answers MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. Unlike regular questions in the sub where sources are only required upon request, the lack of a source will result in removal of the answer.

• Academic secondary sources are prefered. Tertiary sources are acceptable if they are of academic rigor (such as a book from the 'Oxford Companion' series, or a reference work from an academic press).

• The only rule being relaxed here is with regard to depth, insofar as the anticipated questions are ones which do not require it. All other rules of the subreddit are in force.